justice4nifong: A stacked deck in the courthouse

Thursday, July 20, 2017

A stacked deck in the courthouse

543 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 543 of 543

kenhyderal said...: The abusers of Crystal are The Duke Lacrosse Apologists and defenders of the broken and defunct US Justice System. The lies and distortions disseminated about her are abusive, both to her and to her children. Especially culpable are cowards who vilely slander her anonymously. Like so many African Americans Crystal has been a victim of a selective US Justice system where regardless of guilt money and connections buys acquittal and poverty and marginalization, regardless of innocence buys incarceration; September 11, 2017 at 9:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"The abusers of Crystal are The Duke Lacrosse Apologists"

Kenny is saying, again, with zero evidence, that Crystal had been raped. Since Crystal had NOT been raped, and the alleged rape is what Kenny alleges the Duke apologists are defending against, there are no Duke apologists.

"and defenders of the broken and defunct US Justice System."

The US Justice system is by no means perfect. However, Kenny willfully blind eye to such events as the wrongful prosecution of innocent men for raping Crysta, to the frivolous, non meritorious nature of the lawsuits Sidney has filed, and turns a willfully blind eye to the fact that Crystal had become a criminal years before she ever falsely accused the Lacrosse players of raping her, turns a willfully blind eye to the fact that Crystal murdered Reginald Daye. Kenny is someone who does not recognize injustice. He advocates for injustice.

"The lies and distortions disseminated about her are abusive, both to her and to her children."

What lies? Kenny turns a willfully blind eye to the fact that there is no evidence Crystal ever told the truth when she falsely accused members of the Duke Lacrosse team of raping her, she did lie. The only lies told in the Duke Rape HOAX were not directed at Crystal but at the innocent men she prosecuted the innocent men Nifong, whom Kenny regards as a minister of justice, wrongfully prosecuted.

Kenny has passed on some obviously false statements, the most glaringly obvious one being that Nifong did not charge the falsely accused Lacrosse players with rape. Another one is his persistent insistence that there were unidentified party attendees who raped Crystal. He has zero evidence that there were unidentified party attendees, just like he has zero evidence Crystal was raped.

"Especially culpable are cowards who vilely slander her anonymously."

No one slandered her. She slandered a lot of innocent people. And Kenny and Sidney, who consider themselves as advocates for justice, repeat the slanders, and then run and hide when challenged to prove the truth of what they say.

"Like so many African Americans Crystal has been a victim of a selective US Justice system where regardless of guilt money and connections buys acquittal and poverty and marginalization, regardless of innocence buys incarceration".

Yes many Americans, including Black Americans, are victimized by the justice system. Crystal is not one of them. The innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players were victimized by a corrupt justice system, and Kenny turns a willfully blind eye to that. Race Baiter Al Sharpton victimized innocent people like Stephen Pagones over the Tawana Brawley hoax, and Kenny praises him.

I say again, Kenny the hypocrite is nothing but a gross advocate for injustice for people he dislikes.; September 11, 2017 at 9:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

Sharts and lies will not get Crystal out of prison. You would have figured that out by now, unless you just fell off the turnip truck.; September 11, 2017 at 10:15 AM
FakeKenhyderal said...: Sidney Harr logic....in musical format.; September 12, 2017 at 11:38 AM
kenhyderal said...: Weird Al's lyrics bring to mind not Dr. Harr's fight for justice and civil rights but the suits of the unindicted Duke Lacrosse Players who hoped to cash-in, in the wake of Duke's settlement with Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann; September 12, 2017 at 1:38 PM
FakeKenhyderal said...: Kenny -- Do you have idea how may lawsuits Sidney has been party to over the years? Over 30! How many lawsuits have you been involved in?

No, Weird Al's lyrics suit Sid perfectly.; September 12, 2017 at 2:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Weird Al's lyrics bring to mind not Dr. Harr's fight for justice and civil rights"

Completely irrelevant statement, as Sidney Harr has never fought for justice and civil rights. Civil rights include the right to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to be represented by counsel when accused of a crime, the right not to talk to the authorities. Nifong sought to undermine all these rights. Sidney has called him a decent, honorable minister of justice who acted well within the ethical standards for a prosecutor. HAH!!! and HAH!!! to Kenny who thinks he is fighting for justice when he presumes innocent men guilty when he has zero evidence that a crime never happened.

"but the suits of the unindicted Duke Lacrosse Players who hoped to cash-in, in the wake of Duke's settlement with Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann".

And maybe you, like your mentor Sidney, believe they shook down Duke. Duke would not have settled with them had they believed they could have prevailed in court.

Boy are you jealous of Caucasian men who are more accomplished and better of than you are.; September 12, 2017 at 2:32 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. A. said: "Duke would not have settled with them had they believed they could have prevailed in court"................................ No, they thought their Insurance Company would pay the settlement. They should have known better. America's immoral Insurance Companies love premiums but hate paying claims. They'll use any escape clause they can find to deny paying claims. It's one of the main reasons America needs a single payer universal health care system to cut these grafters out of their rip-offs.; September 12, 2017 at 4:46 PM
Anonymous said...: The falsely accused lacrosse defendants got a nice settlement. It is what motivated Sid to sue Duke over and over again. It might have worked, except for the fact that Sid didn't have a case.; September 12, 2017 at 5:17 PM
Anonymous said...: If the US went to single payer, where would all the Canadians go for medical procedures?; September 12, 2017 at 5:18 PM
kenhyderal said...: That is a myth. http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html. We introduced single payer universal in Canada medicare 55 years age. US is always years behind in doing the right thing. It isn't even an election issue there. Canadians are happy and satisfied with their system. We heard all the same negative arguments from the Insurance Company lobbyists back in the 1960's. They're all still here shilling their auxiliary coverage for optometry dentistry chiropractic etc. I pray that the victims of Harvey and Irma will be treated fairly by these robber barons but I wont hold my breath; September 12, 2017 at 9:19 PM
guiowen said...: The trouble with Canada's health-care system is that it wipes out any interest in medical research. In 1923 some Canadians got the Nobel prize for medicine. Since then, several Canadians have received this prize -- but only for research performed after they moved to the Unite States.; September 12, 2017 at 9:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"'Dr. A. said: "Duke would not have settled with them had they believed they could have prevailed in court'................................ No, they thought their Insurance Company would pay the settlement. They should have known better. America's immoral Insurance Companies love premiums but hate paying claims. They'll use any escape clause they can find to deny paying claims. It's one of the main reasons America needs a single payer universal health care system to cut these grafters out of their rip-offs."

Kenny, you are INCREDIBLY STUPID if you believe what you have written.

Insurance companies have lawyers. Insurance companies are involved in whether or no a case is defended or settled. I say again, and you can check with a real legal expert(which neither you nor Sidney are), when a defendant settles a case rather than defend it, it is because the defendant knows the risk and financial consequences of defending the suit would cost more.

What do you believe? An insured just decides to settle a case for millions of dollars and his insurance carrier will simply pay off?

Maybe you read one of Sidney's ridiculous assertions, that Duke settled because one of the plaintiffs' attorneys assured Duke that their insurance carrier would just pay off.; September 13, 2017 at 2:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Kenny.; September 13, 2017 at 3:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny continues to show he's an idiot who just makes shit up.

If you have insurance, they have the sole discretion on whether or not they will settle (if they are going to pay for it). If they want to settle, you cannot stop them. If they don't want to settle, you cannot make them. If you settle the claim without clearing it with them (which is what he apparently claims Duke did - settled because they knew insurance would pay), they don't have to pay the claim.

Kenny, your idiocy and false assumptions (which you state as facts) truly know no bounds.

Insurance companies are in the business of profit. Their decision to settle or fight is driven by what the perceive is best for their bottom line, and since they have thousands of cases/claims, they look at them globally, not individually. If they think there is a 25% change they will lose $1 million at trial, they will settle for around $250,000. If they think the chance of a loss is 80%, they will settle for around $800,000. It's all math.

Stop being an idiot.; September 13, 2017 at 4:52 AM
kenhyderal said...: http://www.businessinsider.com/aig-had-to-pay-for-the-duke-lacrosse-stripper-lawsuit-2011-2; September 13, 2017 at 8:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny,

I think it is clear that you and Sidney are both Duke Apologists.

You and Sidney both insist that Duke agreed to settle with the indicted and unindicted lacrosse players solely because their insurance company would pay for all or a major portion of any settlement. You reject out of hand the theory that Duke was concerned that it faced a significant probability that it would lose a trial or, even more importantly, that the public disclosure of discovery related to a lawsuit (even if settled before trial) would uncover information that would prove embarrassing.; September 13, 2017 at 9:33 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Insurance companies are in the business of profit. Their decision to settle or fight is driven by what the perceive is best for their bottom line"............Daaa! B.T.W., deny paying a claim, anyway possible and the bottom line goes up. Design your contract in such a way you can use clauses, not fully appreciated or understood by the client, to deny a claim; the bottom line goes up. Employ lawyers, without scruples, to find ways to escape your liability; the bottom line goes up. Employ lobbyists to maintain the rapacious US medical insurance business by trashing single payer universal health care, that civilized countries have and the rapacious gravy train goes on.; September 13, 2017 at 10:07 AM
guiowen said...: Employ lawyers so that you never have to pay any claim, and your bottom line goes down.; September 13, 2017 at 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Kenny.; September 13, 2017 at 4:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"http://www.businessinsider.com/aig-had-to-pay-for-the-duke-lacrosse-stripper-lawsuit-2011-2"

That article clearly states Duke settled rather than defend in court. It had nothing to do with whether or not the insurance carrier would pay.; September 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "Insurance companies are in the business of profit. Their decision to settle or fight is driven by what the perceive is best for their bottom line"............Daaa! B.T.W., deny paying a claim, anyway possible and the bottom line goes up. Design your contract in such a way you can use clauses, not fully appreciated or understood by the client, to deny a claim; the bottom line goes up. Employ lawyers, without scruples, to find ways to escape your liability; the bottom line goes up. Employ lobbyists to maintain the rapacious US medical insurance business by trashing single payer universal health care, that civilized countries have and the rapacious gravy train goes on."

Kenny again showing he is delusional.; September 13, 2017 at 4:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Ubes.; September 13, 2017 at 6:46 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous 4:40 said: That article clearly states Duke settled rather than defend in court. It had nothing to do with whether or not the insurance carrier would pay."..................................... Huh? The article states " The university filed a lawsuit requiring AIG to reimburse them for the settlements it paid to the lacrosse players. Today, both AIG and Duke agreed to "dismiss" that lawsuit, according to Bloomberg". In other words Duke expected to get paid like most insured who make a claim. When AIG, as is typical of US insurance companies, wouldn't pay they sued. Eventually they dropped the suit and "ate" the settlement they paid or rather they passed it on to their students and alumni to pay. Just ask Duke haters like KC Johnson; September 13, 2017 at 8:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"@ Anonymous 4:40 said: That article clearly states Duke settled rather than defend in court. It had nothing to do with whether or not the insurance carrier would pay."..................................... Huh? The article states 'The university filed a lawsuit requiring AIG to reimburse them for the settlements it paid to the lacrosse players. Today, both AIG and Duke agreed to 'dismiss' that lawsuit, according to Bloomberg.' In other words Duke expected to get paid like most insured who make a claim. When AIG, as is typical of US insurance companies, wouldn't pay they sued."

Well, then maybe you should consider the following instead of remaining willfully ignorant. Why would Duke settle if they could have prevailed in court? And, if you read the earlier comments, if Duke decided to settle without consulting with their insurance company, then they did relieve the insurance company of any obligation to reimburse them. The fact that Duke's suit against AIG was dismissed does indicate that Duke did realize they not have a case, just like their agreement to settle with the Lacrosse players was an admission on Duke's part that the Lacrosse players did have a case.

"Eventually they dropped the suit and 'ate' the settlement they paid or rather they passed it on to their students and alumni to pay. Just ask Duke haters like KC Johnson'.

The only hateful behavior in the Duke Rape Hoax was the behavior f Crystal, of Nifong, of the Pot Bangers, of the Goup of 88 on the Duke Faculty, of the Duke Administration who caved in to the guilt presumers and threw their innocent students under the proverbial bus. It was that hateful behavior which made it necessary for Duke to eat the settlement, not the behavior of the innocent, falsely accused Duke students or the behavior of theor supporters.

And you cn not recognize how hateful your behavior is, presuming the accused guilty, even though you have zero evidence the alleged rape ever happened, zero evidence Crystal ever told the truth when she alleged she had been raped.; September 14, 2017 at 2:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenhyderal:

Let me repeat this for you. Duke settled the case, not because they thought they could pass the settlement costs to its insurance company. They settled the case because they knew the Lacrosse players had a case and they could not defend against it successfully in court.

And again, if Duke did that without consulting with their insurance company, which is the standard way of doing things, then they relieved their insurance company of any obligation to reimburse them.

I say again, you are incredibly stupid in the way you try to bullshit your way through ad around facts you do not like.; September 14, 2017 at 7:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

from "http://www.businessinsider.com/aig-had-to-pay-for-the-duke-lacrosse-stripper-lawsuit-2011-2":

"AIG ended up HAVING TO PAY PART OF THE MULTI-MILLION SETTLEMENTS(emphasis added) that Duke University paid to the three lacrosse stars who were accused of raping a stripper the team had hired for one of their parties, Crystal Gail Mangum, back in 2006."

And:

"The insurance giant offered the school $5 million in 2008, but apparently that wasn't enough. The university filed a lawsuit requiring AIG to reimburse them for the settlements it paid to the lacrosse players."

So, it does seem Duke negotiated a settlement with the wrongfully accused Lacrosse players without consulting with its insurance company and then passed it on to its insurance company.

Once again you show you know nothing about what you presume to talk. Why am I not surprised.; September 14, 2017 at 7:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

With regard to your post of September 13, 2017 at 8:44 PM.

Why do you think you can distort the truth?

This is something like a claim you once made, that Nifong did not have the indicted Lacrosse players charged with rape.

I am waiting to see how you will try to bullshit your way around and through this.; September 14, 2017 at 11:24 AM
kenhyderal said...: It's the same old Duke Lacrosse Apologist strategy; accept nothing, dispute all, attack everything, concede nothing. Unbiased and open-minded readers, see for yourself who is trying bullshit their way around what Bloomberg wrote.; September 14, 2017 at 12:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Projection, Kenny, the Duke Apologist, projection.; September 14, 2017 at 2:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"It's the same old Duke Lacrosse Apologist strategy; accept nothing, dispute all, attack everything, concede nothing."

No, it's the same old Kenhyderal strategy, presume people you dislike are guilty of a crime, of which you have zero evidence that it ever happened. I say again, since there was no rape of Crystal at the Lacrosse party, there are zero Duke Lacrosse apologists.

"Unbiased and open-minded readers, see for yourself who is trying bullshit their way around what Bloomberg wrote."

That leaves you out.

Kenhyderal is the one who misrepresented what the Bloomberg article said, claiming that Bloomberg just refused to pay and then Duke sued them, so it is obvious who is trying to bullshit his way around and through facts which do mot mesh with his guilt presumption.

Kenhyderal, do you seriously believe an institution with deep pockets would just settle a brewing seven figure lawsuit which, according to your legal non entity mentor Sidney, they could have beaten in court, because they believed their insurance carrier would pick up the tab they would have run up? If you do, you confirm my impression of you, that you are incredibly stupid.; September 14, 2017 at 2:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Considering your deluded admiration of Sidney, I believe you subscribe to his hypothesis that Duke could have prevailed in court. I believe Sidney is the one who suggested that Duke settled believing their insurer would pay out the amount for which Duke settled. I believe Sidney went farther than that, saying that a Lacrosse defense attorney assured Duke that their insurer would pay.

So without any bullshit, explain why an institution like Duke would settle a multi million dollar lawsuit because they believed their insurer would pay, even though Duke could have prevailed in court?

I know I am giving a task which, for you, has thus far has been an impossible task, make a point without bullshitting. Why don't you at least try? Because if you eliminated the bullshit you might see that Crystal had not told the truth about being raped.

So explain why you get such a charge out of believing Crystal had been raped.; September 14, 2017 at 2:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Ubes.; September 14, 2017 at 3:49 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "Kenhyderal is the one who misrepresented what the Bloomberg article said, claiming that Bloomberg just refused to pay and then Duke sued them, so it is obvious who is trying to bullshit his way around and through facts which do mot mesh with his guilt presumption"........................It appears that Dr. Anonymous is confused. Bloomberg is a financial news agency. It is owned by the billionaire Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City. They were reporting on the incident AIG is a multi-national insurance company. It is the 18th largest company in the world. It is a company that was bailed out by the American tax payers to the tune of 180 billion by the US Government in 2008 Financial Crisis. It insured Duke. In this current discussion concerning what Bloomberg has reported what specifically I said do you consider "bullshit"; September 15, 2017 at 9:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "Kenhyderal is the one who misrepresented what the Bloomberg article said, claiming that Bloomberg just refused to pay and then Duke sued them, so it is obvious who is trying to bullshit his way around and through facts which do mot mesh with his guilt presumption"........................It appears that Dr. Anonymous is confused."

No I'm not. You are. You have been is a state of confusion ever since you began posting on J4N.

"Bloomberg is a financial news agency. It is owned by the billionaire Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City. They were reporting on the incident AIG is a multi-national insurance company. It is the 18th largest company in the world. It is a company that was bailed out by the American tax payers to the tune of 180 billion by the US Government in 2008 Financial Crisis. It insured Duke. In this current discussion concerning what Bloomberg has reported what specifically I said do you consider "bullshit'"

You said, " In other words Duke expected to get paid like most insured who make a claim. When AIG, as is typical of US insurance companies, wouldn't pay they sued. Eventually they dropped the suit and "ate" the settlement they paid ". Not so. According to the article you cited, AIG did offer to reimburse Duke, but not for the entire amount that Duke had agreed to pay. Then Duke sued AIG. Then Duke and AIG agreed to have the lawsuit dismissed. That says, Duke did not have a case against AIG. That would indicate Duke agreed to the settlement amount without consulting AIG which, according to what has been posted here, if an insured agrees to a settlement amount without discussing the amount with its insure, then the insurer is off the hook.

Do you really believe Sidney's bullshit that Duke would agree to settle a case in which they would have prevailed in court because an attorney for the falsely accused Lacrosse players assured them that their insurer would cover the amount?; September 15, 2017 at 11:19 AM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal said,

"Duke expected to get paid like most insured who make a claim. When AIG, as is typical of US insurance companies, wouldn't pay they sued."

On the one hand, you said Duke expected to get paid like most insured who make a claim. On the other hand, you say it is typical of most insurance companies not to pay.
So which is it: do most insured (who make a claim) get paid? or is it typical of most insuranc3e companies not to pay?; September 15, 2017 at 1:26 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. A said: if an insured agrees to a settlement amount without discussing the amount with its insure, then the insurer is off the hook."...................................It must have been in the "fine print" that predatory insurance companies use to escape all or portions of a claim. Obviously Duke didn't realize that and made a claim for all of the exorbitant amount they forked over to Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann. I hope the victims of Harvey and Irma make out better then the victims of Sandy did but knowing the predatory nature of American Insurance Companies I am not hopeful. B.T. W. Am I the only person who has difficulty following Dr. A.'s logic. Actually occasionally him and I agree but as a Duke Lacrosse apologist he can't bring himself to such a concession. So, he's left with resorting to tortuous circumlocution to avoid admitting that his interpretation was mistaken. It took him moths to concede Daye had been esophageally intubated and he is still in denial that Day was an alcoholic.; September 15, 2017 at 1:29 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "So which is it: do most insured (who make a claim) get paid? or is it typical of most insuranc3e companies not to pay?"........................ Most insured either get denied or don't receive what they think are entitled to. Denying or reducing claims is their typical modus operandi. If you don't know that you will find it out when you experience a loss and file a claim.; September 15, 2017 at 1:36 PM
Anonymous said...: guiowen,

After all these years, how can you expect Kenny to make intellectually honest, or even consistent arguments? He will say whatever he thinks advances whatever argument he is trying to make, without regard for the truth or any previous statements he may have made. When you call him out on it, he will pretend it didn't happen. Kenny is a liar and a troll.; September 15, 2017 at 1:38 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
In other words, Duke settled with the lacrosse players, (for a total of about 20 million) even though insurance companies don't usually pay all that their clients claim. Well, maybe the people at Duke just don't understand these things. Or did they just figure they could afford to lose 10 or 15 million?; September 15, 2017 at 3:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

part 1

"Dr. A said: if an insured agrees to a settlement amount without discussing the amount with its insure, then the insurer is off the hook."...................................It must have been in the "fine print" that predatory insurance companies use to escape all or portions of a claim."

Wrong. I speak from experience as both a plaintiff and defendant in persona injury cases, when an insurance company is involved, it is in the policy or contract or whatever, that if the insured negotiates a settlement with a plaintiff on his own without consulting the insurance company he is on his own to come up with the settlement. If you knew anything, you would realize it is not at all believable that an insured can submit a claim for some amount and the insurance company is not allowed to examine the claim before it agrees to pay off.

"Obviously Duke didn't realize that and made a claim for all of the exorbitant amount they forked over to Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann."

You base the claim of exorbitsnt on what Sidney claimed, that player received $Ź0 million. That was based on a claim that the IRS filed a claim for back taxes against one of the defendants for $6 million. That was originally posted by some accountant who claimed he had received the notice from the IRS. If the IRS has a problem with a tax payer's return, the IRS contacts the taxpayer directly. In spite of your bullshit, Duke would not have agreed to a multi million dollar settlement if it could have prevailed in court. And, I guess you do not consider it unjust that the innocent, falsely accused defendants incurred big legal bills thanks to the bogus rape claim, the wrongful prosecution.

"I hope the victims of Harvey and Irma make out better then the victims of Sandy did but knowing the predatory nature of American Insurance Companies I am not hopeful."

You must love making claims based on zero evidence. Provide, if you can, that you know anything about the US Insurance industry.; September 15, 2017 at 3:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Pae\rt 2:

"B.T. W. Am I the only person who has difficulty following Dr. A.'s logic."

You can not follow any one's logic because you do not know what logic is. You are a biasedm prejudiced guilt presuming racist, nothing more.

"Actually occasionally him and I agree but as a Duke Lacrosse apologist he can't bring himself to such a concession."

As there was no Rape on March 13/14, 2006 at 610 Buchanan Avenue, there was nothing to generate any such thing as Duke Lacrosse apologist. Your comment is irrelevant. It is but another manifestation of your guilt presumption regarding the innocent defendants. I again remind you, you have provided zero evidence that Crystal had ever been raped, that Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped.

"So, he's left with resorting to tortuous circumlocution to avoid admitting that his interpretation was mistaken."

No I don't. You do not like the evidence I give you, which does not mesh with your guilt presumption. So you resort to bullshitting your way around and through facts which do not mesh with your guilt presumption.

"It took him moths to concede Daye had been esophageally intubated"

For your edification, I did believe that he had not been esophageally intubated because it was stated in the records Sidney posted that a direct laryngoscopy was done and the tube was in the trachea. Then I read Dr. Robert's opinion, that the vomitus obscured the view of the airway, the vomiting having occurred because Reginald Daye was being evaluated at the time for an intra abdominal infection, at which he had been placed when Crystal stabbed him and lacerated his colon.

"and he is still in denial that Day was an alcoholic."

Just like you have presented zero evidence that Crystal had ever been raped, and have provided zero evidence you know anything about the liability insurance industry in the US, you have provided zero evidence that Reginald Daye was a chronic alcoholic. The only one who testified he was alcoholic was Crystal, AFTER she was facing a possible Murder One rap. Crystal has established many times over that she is not a credible, reliable witness. That you believe she is establishes you have no capability to be a credible, reliable.

Just for closers, the esophageal intubation did not rise to the level of medical malpractice. The opinion of a professional anesthesiology organization does not add up to a legal ruling. Courts make legal rulings. That means the court has to have testimony from expert witnesses to show negligence took place. Negligence would have been something like, an anesthesiologist or anesthetist places a tube in the esophagus and then carries on as if nothing had happened. The treating physicians did realize that something had happened and made an appropriate effort to correct the situation. That does not automatically add up to negligence.

And I repeat, even if it were negligence, that would not have relieved Crystal of legal responsibility for Reginald Daye's death.

It does not add up to negligence just because a couple of non experts like you and Sidney said so.

So go and compose your next Bullshit comment.; September 15, 2017 at 3:12 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "He will say whatever he thinks advances whatever argument he is trying to make, without regard for the truth or any previous statements he may have made. When you call him out on it, he will pretend it didn't happen"....... Can you give us an example of that?; September 15, 2017 at 3:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"[Kenhyderal] will say whatever he thinks advances whatever argument he is trying to make, without regard for the truth or any previous statements he may have made. When you call him out on it, he will pretend it didn't happen"....... Can you give us an example of that?"

I will again give you an example.

I pointed out to you that, after the party Kim Roerts/Pittmean drove away from the party with Crystal in her car. Kim called 911, not to report a rape but to report that while she and her black girlfriend were either walking or driving past the house, people shouted "n---er" at them. Then she drove Crystal not to a hospital or to a police station but to a grocery store parking lot and asked a security guard to remove Crystal from her car. I asked you why Kim did not report a crime or drive Crystal to a police station or to a hospital. Your reply was that Kim was not aware of the alleged crime.

I gave you a link to Crystal's hand written statement she gave to the police. In that statement Crystal said Kim was aware she had been dragged into the bathroom and that she had told Kim she had been hurt. I pointed out Crystal, herself, had told Kim about the rape. I again asked why Kim did not report a rape to the police, did not drive Crystal to a police station or to a hospital.

On that occasion, I admit, you did not "ay whatever he thinks advances whatever argument he is trying to make". You said nothing.; September 15, 2017 at 3:38 PM
kenhyderal said...: I didn't realize that the poster was Dr. A. Having discussions with Anonymous posters makes it difficult to know who you are debating with. I usually recognize Dr. A. posts by his repetitive ad hominem attacks but this time I thought this was not him. At any rate he replied:-------- "On that occasion, I admit, you did not "(s)ay whatever he thinks advances whatever argument he is trying to make". You said nothing" Now tell us if I did not say anything to advance any arguments I was trying to make how could I be bullshitting. Perhaps he is accusing me of bullshitting by omission. Anyway it's ever so typical of the type of faulty reasoning Dr. A. employs in his desperate attempt to counter anything and everything that might cast doubt on his angelic lads; September 15, 2017 at 9:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"I didn't realize that the poster was Dr. A. Having discussions with Anonymous posters makes it difficult to know who you are debating with. I usually recognize Dr. A. posts by his repetitive ad hominem attacks"

Kenny, pointing out that you pontificate about matters of which you have no knowledge is not an ad himinem attack. It is a statement of fact.

"but this time I thought this was not him. At any rate he replied:-------- "On that occasion, I admit, you did not "(s)ay whatever he thinks advances whatever argument he is trying to make". You said nothing" Now tell us if I did not say anything to advance any arguments I was trying to make how could I be bullshitting."

I pointed out that Kim, when she drove Crystal away from the party, called the police but did not report any crime against Crystal. Kim then drove Crystal not to a hospital or to the police but drove her to a grocery store parking lot and asked a security guard to forcibly remove Crystal from her car. I pointed out to you that was evidence Crystal had not been raped. Your explanation was, Kim was probably unaware of what happened to Crystal. I gave you the link to Crystal's statement to the police in which she claimed Kim had been aware of what happened to her. Your response was silence. It was, in another form, you trying to bullshit your way around and through FACTS which do not mesh with your guilt presumption.

"Perhaps he is accusing me of bullshitting by omission."

Read what I wrote above. You finally got something right.

"Anyway it's ever so typical of the type of faulty reasoning Dr. A. employs in his desperate attempt to counter anything and everything that might cast doubt on his angelic lads".

Irrelevant staement on two counts. The way you do what you call reasoning is the epitome of faulty reasoning. The male DNA found on Crystal did not match anyone who was identified at the party. You have presented zero evidence that there were any unidentified party attendees. Yet, you insist the finding of the male DNA showed there were unidentified party attendees. That is an example of you trying to bullshit your way through facts which do not mesh with your guilt presumption. Count two is, nothing you have spewed forth casts doubt on the innocence of the men accused of rape.

Why do you think presuming innocent men guilty of a crime which never happened confers angelic status upon you?; September 16, 2017 at 3:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

You talk aboout my reaction to statements which cast doubt on my "angelic lads".

You presume a fact not in evidence.

You presume your guilt presumption in the face of zero evidence to support your guilt presumption, casts doubt.; September 16, 2017 at 3:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Regarding your claim that I have heartburn whenever you cast doubt on the innocence of my "ngelic lads".

Your uncorroborated allegations cast doubt on nothing except your credibility.

You turn a willfully blind eye to the way you decompensate whenever you confront facts which show your favorite murderess/false accuser has a history of less than angelic behavior which began before she ever precipitated the Duke Rape Hoax, and which behavior incuded false allegations of rape against another group of men.; September 16, 2017 at 4:20 AM
kenhyderal said...: Let me quote Kim Roberts on National Public Radio June 14 2006-------------------- " Ms. ROBERTS: ...okay, first of all, one of the things that I learned was the fact that she was 27. I found out that she knew how to drink; you know, what I mean? So it made me wonder as to why in the world was she so out of it, you know. And also, I didn't even want to imagine that something like that could happen to her and I'm 20 feet away. I can never say that a rape did or did not occur; that's for the courts to decide. I didn't see it happen, you know. But what I can say is that there was opportunity and that it could have happened. You have to entertain the fact that it's possible it didn't, but it's possible it did."; September 16, 2017 at 8:43 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. A. said: "Kenny, pointing out that you pontificate about matters of which you have no knowledge is not an ad himinem (sic) attack. It is a statement of fact" .................... Does this sound like a statement of fact or is it an unwarranted ad hominem attack? Quoting you: "You are a biased (sic) prejudiced guilt presuming racist, nothing more"; September 16, 2017 at 9:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"No Let me quote Kim Roberts on National Public Radio June 14 2006-------------------- 'Ms. ROBERTS: ...okay, first of all, one of the things that I learned was the fact that she was 27. I found out that she knew how to drink; you know, what I mean? So it made me wonder as to why in the world was she so out of it, you know. And also, I didn't even want to imagine that something like that could happen to her and I'm 20 feet away. I can never say that a rape did or did not occur; that's for the courts to decide. I didn't see it happen, you know. But what I can say is that there was opportunity and that it could have happened. You have to entertain the fact that it's possible it didn't, but it's possible it did.'"

Totally non responsive.

It is a fact that Kim did not report a rape to the police when she called 911, that she did not drive Crystal to a hospital or to a police station. Crystal did claim, in her statement that Kim was aware she had been assaulted.

So explain why Kim did not report a rape to the police, why Kim did not drive Crystal to a hospital or to a police station, Why Kim tried to have Crystal forcibly removed from her car.

The most logical and credible explanation that Crystal did not tell Kim she had been assaulted at the party(ergo she lied in her police statement), and that Crystal never claimed a rape until she was taken to the Durham access center and a nurse asked her if she had been raped.; September 16, 2017 at 10:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. A. said: "Kenny, pointing out that you pontificate about matters of which you have no knowledge is not an ad himinem (sic) attack. It is a statement of fact" .................... Does this sound like a statement of fact or is it an unwarranted ad hominem attack? Quoting you: 'You are a biased (sic) prejudiced guilt presuming racist, nothing more'"

Kenny, yu have zero eidence that the alleged rape ever occurred. You do have evidence that if it had occurred, none of the Lacrosse players could have perpetrated it. Yet you insist that a crime had occurred and that members of the Lacrosse team were complicit in or in actually involved in the alleged crime. That makes you a guilt presumer.

And your disparaging statements about members of the Lacrosse team, which are re-hashes of Sidney's statements about them, when you have no evidence that the crime of which you accuse them show you are biased against them.

Ergo, it is a statement of fact, whether or not you like it.; September 16, 2017 at 10:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, you do pontificate on matters about which you have no knowledge, like ligal matters, like clinical medical situations.; September 16, 2017 at 10:10 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. A. said: "when you have no evidence that the crime of which you accuse them show you are biased against them. Ergo, it is a statement of fact, whether or not you like it"..............The ad hominem attack you made was calling me a racist. Those who frequent this post will know that racist and Nazi are two of the ad hominem attacks you frequently resort to especially when you are losing an argument; September 16, 2017 at 3:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. A. said: "when you have no evidence that the crime of which you accuse them show you are biased against them. Ergo, it is a statement of fact, whether or not you like it"..............The ad hominem attack you made was calling me a racist."

Your attitude is racist in that you believe Crystal should be considered a victim because of the amount of melanin in her skin. You think Sidney should be considered great for the same reason.

"Those who frequent this post will know that racist and Nazi are two of the ad hominem attacks you frequently resort to especially when you are losing an argument".

You think people whom you dislike should be presumed guilty. That is an attitude very consistent with totalitarian states, like Nazi Germany.; September 16, 2017 at 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, your admiration for race baiter Al and race baiter Jesse characterizes you as racist.; September 16, 2017 at 4:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

Your admiration for Nifong, who,without any evidence, proclaimed that a crime had been committed, that members of the Lacrosse team were the perpetrators and that the crime had been racially motivated characterizes you as racist.; September 16, 2017 at 5:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, check out http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2016/03/where-are-they-now:

"During a segment on “60 Minutes” in 2015, Roberts told interviewer Ed Bradley that she never witnessed a sexual assault at the house party or any other form of attack."

Before you have yet another hissy fit, i checked the date. The interview took place on November 13, 2006(https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/the-other-exotic-dancer/).; September 16, 2017 at 5:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny

check out http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/10/13/second-duke-stripper-refutes-more-alleged-rape-victim-claims.html. Yes this is from FOX News. The story includes quotes from the interview

""In the police statement, [accuser] describes the rape in this way: 'Three guys grabbed Nikki,' 'That's you,'" Bradley said, "'Brett, Adam and Matt grabbed me. They separated us at the master bedroom door while we tried to hold on to each other. Bret, Adam and Matt took me into the bathroom.'"

He asked Roberts: "Were you holding on to each other? Were you pulled apart?"

"Nope," replied Roberts, who said that was the first time she had heard that version of what allegedly happened.

Roberts, who was sentenced to 120 days of house arrest on Sept. 25 for an unrelated probation violation, also denies the accuser's statement to the police that after the alleged rape, Roberts came into the bathroom and helped one of the rapists dress her.

"She obviously wasn't hurt ... because she was fine," Roberts said when asked by Bradley whether she saw signs of rape from the accuser.

"She tried to play it down the middle," a source close to "60 Minutes" told the Durham Herald-Sun.. "She tried not to offer an opinion as to whether it was a crock. She wants the viewers to decide. But she says she didn't witness any rape. She wants to set the record straight on some things [the alleged victim] has said. She doesn't know whether a rape occurred. She just knows some of the things [the accuser] alleged to have happened did not happen."; September 16, 2017 at 5:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

Check this out: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=2562254:

"But in a "60 Minutes" interview to be broadcast this Sunday on CBS, Roberts dropped a bombshell: She no longer supports the alleged victim's story.

'Did she give you any reason to believe that she had been assaulted?' Ed Bradley asked Roberts.

'No,' Roberts said. 'She obviously wasn't hurt, because, you know, she was fine.'"

This came from ABC news.; September 16, 2017 at 5:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Ken Edwards, you are a fraud and a coward. I am waiting for you in Lumberton.

Malek Williams
Hillside H.S.
Class of 1996; September 16, 2017 at 6:02 PM
guiowen said...: After the incident with the lacrosse player and sweet Crystal, good old Mike Nifong realized there were two witnesses who might give evidence harmful to his case: Kim Roberts and Moez Elmostafa.
Fortunately, Mike found that Kim was on probation for some unfortunate episode some years earlier. Suddenly Kim found herself in trouble for violating the terms of her probation. This led her to make some meaningless statement about how Crystal might have been assaulted.
As for Moez, good old Mike found that, some years back, he had been driving his cab for some woman accused of shoplifting. Suddenly, Moez found that charges could be leveled against him for this episode.
Isn't good old Mike clever?; September 16, 2017 at 7:04 PM
guiowen said...: No wonder good old Kenny admires good old Mike so much!; September 16, 2017 at 7:07 PM
kenhyderal said...: Some day "so called" Malek Williams
we will meet and the result of that meeting will not be nice. If you are not afraid of that meeting tell us your real name.; September 16, 2017 at 8:54 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "Kenny, your admiration for race baiter Al and race baiter Jesse characterizes you as racist"......................... The Reverend Jackson and the Reverend Sharpton were both confidants and advisors to President Obama. Both men ran for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Both men have a long outstanding record of standing up against injustice.; September 16, 2017 at 9:06 PM
kenhyderal said...: Kim Roberts changed her story from it was a crock to I saw nothing and I know nothing and this is probably true. The rape occurred out of her presence. These are questions that should have been aired in court under oath and subjected to cross examination in a trial of the accused for the charges DA Nifong had pursued i.e. Sexual assault and kidnapping plus the additional slam-dunk charge he should of laid for the factually demonstrated offence of theft.; September 16, 2017 at 9:21 PM
guiowen said...: Of course she saw nothing: nothing occurred!; September 16, 2017 at 10:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "Kenny, your admiration for race baiter Al and race baiter Jesse characterizes you as racist"......................... The Reverend Jackson and the Reverend Sharpton were both confidants and advisors to President Obama. Both men ran for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Both men have a long outstanding record of standing up against injustice."

Well, that is something Mr. bama should have apologizedtothe publicfor. They are both self serving race baiters. That was the moral equivalent of Mr. Trump hiring the head of Brietbart as his chief strategist.; September 17, 2017 at 3:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Kim Roberts changed her story from it was a crock to I saw nothing and I know nothing and this is probably true. The rape occurred out of her presence."

I remind you that Crystal, in her statement to the police, said Kim was aware that she had been assaulted. And what then did you hope to accomplish by quoting Kim in your previous comment?

"These are questions that should have been aired in court under oath and subjected to cross examination in a trial of the accused for the charges DA Nifong had pursued i.e. Sexual assault and kidnapping"

You again omit, probably willfully, that Nifong had the falsely accused defendants charged with RAPE,not just sexual assault and kidnapping. You are still trying to bullshit your way around and through that fact. Referring again to Crystal's statement to the police, the sexual assault Crystal described was a gang rape in which multiple assailants not using condoms penetrated her and deposited bodily fluids on her. There should have been evidence of deposition of bodily fluids found on her. There was no such evidence. There was no such evidence of an assault. Crystal could not reliably identify any party attendee(and again i remind you you have zero evidence there were any unidentified party attendees). There was no evidence, no legal justification, for taking the case to trial, especially in a venue which was heavily biased against the defendants, largely because of the improper actions of the DA, the improper actions of the NC NAACP, the improper actions of the people at Duke.

"plus the additional slam-dunk charge he should of laid for the factually demonstrated offence of theft."

It was more like, Crystal was unable to fulfill her part of the contract and someone at the party took back the money. The opinion that theft was a slam dunk is the opinion of no legal training, no legal experience Kenhyderal. Besides, charging them with theft would not have impressed the voters Nifong was trying to impress when he pursued his wrongful prosecution of innocent men.; September 17, 2017 at 3:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenhyderal:

Maybe you could explain how putting Kim Roberts/Pittman on the stand to recount her multiple stories, the rape allegation was a crock, a rape could have happened, I don't know if a rpae happened, would have helped the prosecution's case.; September 17, 2017 at 4:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

De facto, what you are advocating is that the accused b presumed guilty and then be tried in a court which would have rubber stamped the presumption of guilt. That may have been the way things were done in a totalitarian regime, like NaziGerany, but it is not how things should be done in a civilized, democratic country.; September 17, 2017 at 4:18 AM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; September 17, 2017 at 8:06 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. A. said: "It was more like, Crystal was unable to fulfill her part of the contract and someone at the party took back the money".................... Their recourse was a civil action against Crystal and her Agency not stealing money from her purse.; September 17, 2017 at 8:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Ken Edwards,

I am waiting for you in Lumberton.

Malek Williams
Hillside H.S.
Class of 1996; September 17, 2017 at 8:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. A. said: "It was more like, Crystal was unable to fulfill her part of the contract and someone at the party took back the money".................... Their recourse was a civil action against Crystal and her Agency not stealing money from her purse."

Was the money ever actually in her purse? I would not take her word for it, as she has a track record of being a non credible witness to anything, as is evidenced by her multitude of mutually conflicting stories about her alleged rape.

If the money was taken back before she put it in her purse, then Crystal's recourse would have been a civil suit.

This brings up the question, why did crystal not file a civil suit against the people who she alleged had raped her. AG Cooper's dismissal of the criminal charges would not have precluded a civil suit. Considering the people she would have wanted to have sued had deep pockets, the amount sued for would have been in at least 7 figures, and that trial lawyers handle civil suits on a contingency fee basis(if we d not win, you do not have to pay), she would have had no trouble finding representation.

Her troubles would have been, she would have had to provide proof(there was no proof) and she would have had to testify and her muliple mutually contradicting stories would have become part of the public record and she never would have been able to claim afterward that she had been raped.; September 17, 2017 at 8:51 AM
Doogie Howser said...: kenhyderal, What do you have to say for yourself?; September 17, 2017 at 9:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Doogie.; September 17, 2017 at 3:56 PM
guiowen said...: So, Kenny,
When are you going to Lumberton?; September 17, 2017 at 4:07 PM
kenhyderal said...: In order to expedite the matter, perhaps I should send one of my loyal followers from Durham, in my stead. Not certain, though, that the Malek Williams in Lumberton is the same culprit who means ill to Crystal. The poster says he is not afraid to confront me but if he confirms his identity one way or another I'll be in touch. We do have a score to settle.; September 17, 2017 at 9:26 PM
guiowen said...: Loyal followers in Durham? Ha, Ha, Ha!; September 17, 2017 at 9:48 PM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal said:

"In order to expedite the matter, perhaps I should send one of my loyal followers from Durham, in my stead."

Sid is old and too busy with his frivolous lawsuits to do your bidding.; September 18, 2017 at 4:44 AM
Walt said...: Kenny and Sid are your basic purveyors of fake news. Sometimes, they veer off into outright comedy, but most of the time they just post totally fake, made up, claims that have been debunked so many times before it's no longer even funny. Kenny's latest diatribe, much like Sid's take on his entirely predictable loss in court is a collection of so much fake news as to be laughable. And, it has just as much meaning. If either one of them really meant to help Crystal, that time is long past.

Sid could have done some good if he'd kept his mouth shut during the lead up to her trial and saved his counsel just for her. His limited medical knowledge might have been useful to educate Crystal and her lawyer[s] about the medicine surrounding Daye's injuries and death. But, Sid didn't do that. Instead, he decided to breach Crystal's confidence in him and tell the DA that Crystal had no evidence of an intervening cause. With friends like Sid, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.

Kenny, he's just a purveyor of fake news. He, sadly, wants to re-argue every fact well outside of court. That has been the extent of his so called efforts. If he is a friend of Crystal, and I doubt that he even knows her, he is doing her no favors. A real friend would tell her the hard truth and encourage her to get her anger under control and stop resorting to violence every time something doesn't go her way. With friends like Kenny, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.

That brings us to Crystal. I've always held out hope that the Department of Corrections would be able to rehabilitate her. I've always held out hope that she has just been playing Sid for a fool. But, her foolish decision to withdraw her lawyer's well written petition for discretionary review has caused me to question my hope for the DOC's ability to rehabilitate her. Still, I'm an optimist. I think that by January 4, 2027 she will be sufficiently rehabilitated to resume her place among the free in society. By then, her children will be mostly grown and she can't exert much of a bad influence on them. By then, she will be 48 years old. Hopefully, she will be able to control her anger and criminal impulses. But, Crystal is often her own worst enemy.

Walt-in-Durham; September 18, 2017 at 4:50 AM
kenhyderal said...: Walt said: "Kenny's latest diatribe, much like Sid's take on his entirely predictable loss in court is a collection of so much fake news as to be laughable"............... Can you be specific Walt, which "diatribe" was that?; September 18, 2017 at 9:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Walt said: 'Kenny's latest diatribe, much like Sid's take on his entirely predictable loss in court is a collection of so much fake news as to be laughable'............... Can you be specific Walt, which "diatribe" was that?"

Be careful of what you wish for. You might get it, and more.; September 18, 2017 at 9:46 AM
Doogie Howser said...: kenhyderal,

I agree with all of the medical opinions you offer on Dr. Harr's blog and look forward to reading more of your comments in the future.; September 19, 2017 at 3:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Tread carefully, Doogie, or you will wind up on Kenny's list. You don't want to be on Kenny's list.; September 20, 2017 at 8:05 AM
kenhyderal supporter said...: Doogie,

Thank you for having the courage to post a comment supporting kenhyderal. Those of us who have been following Dr. Harr's blog appreciate kenhyderal's nuanced understanding of the medical issues presented by Crystal's case. We look forwarding to reading your future comments.; September 20, 2017 at 3:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney or Kenny or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.; September 20, 2017 at 3:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.; September 20, 2017 at 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Doogie.; September 20, 2017 at 6:57 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

Apologies for my absence from the Comment Section, but I was bombarded by a perfect storm of adversity... including deadlines. My appeal against WRAL-5 needed to be addressed, the Court gave Crystal only a week extension to file an Objection... (due September 22nd). Of course I gave her the non-lawyerly assistance that she required to get it filed today. Also, I had been working on a sharlog and was about half finished before I had to concentrate on the Objection.

At last there's a break in my schedule. Right now I am working on a flog that posting the Magistrate's Recommendation against Crystal and her Objection filed today. It will take time because of installing buttons and links to the exhibits in the Objection which number forty-one. Hopefully it will be posted by this Saturday.

As you were.; September 21, 2017 at 2:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Expect another delusional screed from Sidney.; September 21, 2017 at 4:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Has Kenny given up on finding bullshit 2hich he can use to find his way through and around facts which do not mesh with his presumption of guilt on the part of the innocent members of the Lacrosse team who were falsely accused of raping Crystal.; September 23, 2017 at 10:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Of course I gave her the non-lawyerly assistance that she required to get it filed today."

Where did you ever get the idea that you are lawyerly? From the same source you got the idea that Nifong was a decent, honorable minister of justice when he prosecuted innocent men for a rape which never happened?; September 23, 2017 at 10:10 AM
Doogie Howser said...: kenhyderal supporter,

I am happy to be part of the group and trade medical insights with kenhyderal. He analysis of this case is extraordinary and we can all learn much from his posts.; September 23, 2017 at 10:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Welcome to the party Doogie.; September 23, 2017 at 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney or Kenny or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.; September 23, 2017 at 1:40 PM
Doogie Howser said...: Please be serious when you post at this blog.; September 23, 2017 at 2:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Doogie, please take your thumb out of your butt.; September 23, 2017 at 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...: So I'd like to know where, you got the notion
Said I'd like to know where, you got the notion
(To rock the boat), don't rock the boat baby
, don't tip the boat over
(Rock the boat), don't rock the boat baby
(Rock the boat)
Ever since our voyage of love began
Your touch has thrilled me like the rush of the wind
And your arms have held me safe from a rolling sea
There's always been a quiet place to harbor you and me
Our love is like a ship on the ocean
We've been sailing with a cargo full of love and devotion
So I'd like to know where, you got the notion
Said I'd like to know where, you got the notion
, don't rock the boat baby
(Rock the boat), don't tip the boat over
(Rock the boat), don't rock the boat baby
(Rock the boat)
Up to now we sailed through every storm
And I've always had your tender lips to keep me warm
Oh, I need to have the strength that flows from you
Don't let me drift away my dear, when love can see me through
(Our love is like a ship on the ocean)
We've been sailing with a cargo full of love and devotion
So I'd like to know where, you got the notion
Said I'd like to know where, you got the notion
So I'd like to know where, you got the notion
Said I'd like to know where, you got the notion
(To rock the boat), don't rock the boat baby
(Rock the boat), don't tip the boat over
(Rock the boat), don't rock the boat, baby
(Rock the boat), don't tip the boat over
ooh-ooh
(Rock the boat) rock on with you, baby
(Rock the boat) rock on with you, baby
(Rock the boat) rock on with you, baby
(Rock the boat)
(Rock the boat)
(Rock the boat)
(Rock the boat)
(Rock the boat)
(Rock the boat)
(Rock the boat)
(Rock the boat)
(Rock the boat)
(Rock the boat)
(Rock the boat)
(Rock the boat)
(Rock the boat)
(Rock the boat); September 23, 2017 at 3:11 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "Has Kenny given up on finding bullshit 2hich he can use to find his way through and around facts which do not mesh with his presumption of guilt on the part of the innocent members of the Lacrosse team who were falsely accused of raping Crystal"....................Facts? Specifically which facts are you referring to. Physician Dr. Anonymous like Lawyer Walt both throw general and unspecified charges at me and when I ask for specifics they withdraw. If I was in medical or legal jeopardy I would rather seek relief, from Dr. Harr than from either of them. What Dr. Harr lacks in qualification he makes up in caring, compassion and especially diligence; qualities that would ensure me with the best possible outcome. Never give up! As Rev. Jesse Jackson said in his run for President, " keep hope alive". I don't believe Dr. A. understand the difference between fact and opinion and Barrister Walt reflexively defends the indefensible.; September 23, 2017 at 4:29 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Is there any way we can get you to stop whining?; September 23, 2017 at 5:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "Has Kenny given up on finding bullshit 2hich he can use to find his way through and around facts which do not mesh with his presumption of guilt on the part of the innocent members of the Lacrosse team who were falsely accused of raping Crystal"....................Facts? Specifically which facts are you referring to."

Crystal lied about being raped. Nifong prosecuted innocent men to advance his political agenda. Crystal is a murderess. Sidney Harr is clinically incompetent.

Physician Dr. Anonymous like Lawyer Walt both throw general and unspecified charges at me and when I ask for specifics they withdraw."

No we don't. we document the facts and you try to bullshit your away and through the facts because you presume the innocent men falsely accused of raping Crystal. The facts do not mesh with your guilt presumption.

"If I was in medical or legal jeopardy I would rather seek relief, from Dr. Harr than from either of them."

You have a death wish.

What Dr. Harr lacks in qualification he makes up in caring, compassion and especially diligence; qualities that would ensure me with the best possible outcome."

You would not get the best possible outcome from a clinical incompetent like Harr. The only person about whom Harr cares in Harr.

"Never give up! As Rev. Jesse Jackson said in his run for President, ' keep hope alive'."

Look where Jesse got in his run for president. He has not even tried to run for public office for years and has faded from the public eye. He has given up. As far as Harr got in his frivolous non meritorious lawsuits against various defendants.

"I don't believe Dr. A. understand the difference between fact and opinion"

In the face of zero evidence that Crystal was raped, zero evidence that Crystal told the truth about being raped, you believe that the men she accused were guilty. What you might believe is irrelevant.

"and Barrister Walt reflexively defends the indefensible."

Walt points out to you facts which you do not like because you willfully indulge in whatever gratifies you from fantasizing Crystal had been raped. So far as defending the indefensible, why do you support Harr, who defends one of the most corrupt prosecutors in US history as a decent, honorable minister of justice. You have no concept of what is defensible.; September 23, 2017 at 5:41 PM
Doogie Howser said...: kenhyderal,

It is good to hear from you. I thought you had left this blog.; September 23, 2017 at 5:44 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. A. said: "Crystal lied about being raped. Nifong prosecuted innocent men to advance his political agenda". ....These are not facts they are opinions.; September 23, 2017 at 9:34 PM
guiowen said...: What is a fact is that Kenhyderal lies about what he's done and then claims it isn't a lie because he forgot the context.; September 23, 2017 at 10:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. A. said: "Crystal lied about being raped. Nifong prosecuted innocent men to advance his political agenda". ....These are not facts they are opinions."

Those ARE facts.

That Crystal was raped is your opinion, and I repeat, you have zero evidence Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she was raped.; September 24, 2017 at 2:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

What is an opinion and not a fact is your opinion, unnsupported by any evidence, that unidentified party attendees raped Crystal.

So you document you do not know what facts are, which is why you try to bullshit your way around and through facts, facts which do not mesh with your presumption of guilt on the part of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, whom you resent because they are better off and more accomplished than you are. Which is also the reason you resent people like Walt and me.; September 24, 2017 at 3:09 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiown said: "What is a fact is that Kenhyderal lies about what he's done and then claims it isn't a lie because he forgot the context"......................... Huh? Specifics, if you please.; September 24, 2017 at 9:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Guiown said: "What is a fact is that Kenhyderal lies about what he's done and then claims it isn't a htlie because he forgot the context"......................... Huh? Specifics, if you please."

I do not know if these are the specifics you want. You did claim that Nifong did not indict the falsely accused Lacrosse players for rape but for sexual assault and kidnapping. I documented for you that Nifong did indict them for rape. I said, if you did not know this, you were ignorant. If you did know this but made your claim anyway, you were a liar.

I pointed out to you that Kim Roberts/Pittman, when she drove Crystal away from the Party house, she did not call the police to report a rape and did not drive Crystal to a police station or to a hospital. She drove Crystal to a grocery store parking lot to have a security guard forcibly remove Crystal from her car. You claimed Kim was unaware of the rape. I then referred you to Crystal's police statement given to the police in which Crystal said that Kim was aware that she had been dragged into the bathroom and that she had told Kim she had been assaulted.

You sure do not look for the truth when it comes to the Duke Rape HOAX, now, do you.; September 24, 2017 at 9:56 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Remember this exchange we had a year ago? Don't tell me you've forgotten it already. Is the context too confusing for you? Would you like more details?

Blogger kenhyderal said...

Guiowen said: "You still lied in claiming that we had not had that exchange"......... No, Guiowen I do not lie. I had forgotten that exchange and in the context you raised it on this thread it bore little relationship to the original context. That made bringing it back to memory difficult. Don't be so quick to use the ad hominem attack "you are a liar"

September 2, 2016 at 9:45 AM; September 24, 2017 at 10:17 AM
Doogie Howser said...: No, Guiowen, kenhyderal does not lie. He had forgotten that exchange and in the context you raised it on this thread it bore little relationship to the original context. That made bringing it back to memory difficult. Don't be so quick to use the ad hominem attack "you are a liar"; September 25, 2017 at 8:11 AM
guiowen said...: Hey, Kenny,
Isn't it wonderful? There is finally someone who believes your tall tales!; September 25, 2017 at 8:24 AM
kenhyderal said...: Come on Guiowen. Is that the best you can come up with. It was a discussion harking back to me saying, "pride is evil" in Feb. 2015.which triggered JSmith and Guiowen two would be logicians to attack me. You said, " Just so you see what happens. You made a universal statement: "pride is evil". If you knew any logic, you would know that a single counterexample suffices to show that your statement is incorrect. This does not mean that all the counterexamples are the same. Simply that your statement is incorrect. I must conclude that EITHER you don't understand logic OR you do but are trying to pull one over on us: "Oh, you cannot be a counterexample because you're not Lou Gehrig."in either case, whether you don't understand logic, or because you're trying to pull one over on us, you are a sorry person. In either case, I'm just happy I"m not like you I let you get away with something like this some years ago. I don't plan to do so again"..... This had nothing to do with injustice meted out to DA Nifong, Crystal's charge of rape, or her wrongful conviction for murder. Like all Duke Lacrosse apologists you want to label all who disagree with your meta-narative as being liars. To you Crystal is a liar, Nurse Levicy is a liar Dr. Manly is a liar, Detective Linwood is a liar, Detective Gottlieb is a liar, Lab director Meehan is a liar, Dr. Harr is a liar, Author William Cohan is a liar, on and on. The only truth tellers are the "Honest Abe like and the "I can not tell a lie" like Cherry Tree George", Duke Lacrosse Angels. Your example of what you call me lying reminds me of badgering Prosecutor Coggins-Franks confusing Crystal about minutiae of time and space in her violent encounter with drunken, jealous, enraged Daye and then calling her a liar in front of the jury if she happened to mix anything up.; September 25, 2017 at 9:49 AM
guiowen said...: Hey, Kenny,
It's not my fault no one believes your tall tales!
In any case, I point out how you lie, and you come back with some tirade about Nifong and Cohan, and how nobody loves you!
Sorry life treats you so harshly!; September 25, 2017 at 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"To Guiowen:

"'Oh, you cannot be a counterexample because you're not Lou Gehrig.' in either case, whether you don't understand logic, or because you're trying to pull one over on us, you are a sorry person."

Kenny who insists Crystal was raped in the face of zero evidence that the crime ever happened,zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped, who unsuccessfully tries to bullshit his way through and around facts which do not mesh with his guilt presumption as to who perpetrated the rape, calls someone else a sorry person who dowsn't comprehend logic.

The only sorry person is Kenny who gets a charge out of believing Crystal had been raped.; September 25, 2017 at 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...: More from Kenhyderal:

"This had nothing to do with injustice meted out to DA Nifong,"

Nifong was dis barred because he wrongfully prosecuted innocent men when he knew he had no probable cause. What injustice was there. Zero.

Just like there is zero evidence Crystal was ever raped, that Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped.; September 25, 2017 at 10:23 AM
Anonymous said...: More illogic from Kenhyderal:

"ike all Duke Lacrosse apologists you want to label all who disagree with your meta-narative as being liars".

First, as there was no rape at the party at 610 Buchanan Avenue there are no Duke Lacrosse apologists.

Kenny labels anyone who does not buy into his presumption of guilt of the falsely accused players as liars. He may not use the word "liars", but nevertheless he labels them as liars.; September 25, 2017 at 10:26 AM
Anonymous said...: More from Kenhyderal:

"To you Crystal is a liar,"

I again bring up something you do not want to confront. When Kim Pittman/Roberts drove Crystal away from the party house, she did not call the police to report a rape, did not drive Crystal to a hospital or to a police station, she drove Crystal to a grocery store parking lot and tried to get a security guard to forcibly remove Crystal from her car. Kenny's explanation was, Kim was unaware that Crystal had been assaulted. However, referring back to Crystal's statement to the police, Crystal said she had told Kim she had been assaulted. That is pretty strong evidence that Crystal lied about being raped.

"Nurse Levicy is a liar".

Nurse Levicy tried to pass herself off as a SANE when she had just finished training and had not been credentialed to function as a SANE. That was not exactly telling the truth. She also implied she had done the exam when Dr. Manly actually did it. That was not telling the truth.

"Dr. Manly is a liar"

No one ever called Dr. Manly a liar. Dr. Manly found a white fluid in Crystal's genital tract which she thought was semen. She did not do a wet mount to demonstrate motile sperm, which would confirm it was semen. Later she did concede she might have been mistaken. The only thing any one called out Dr. Manly for was not doing a wet mount, which most clinically competent physicians(I said clinically competent physicians and that leaves out Sidney), would have criticized her for that. That was not calling her a liar.

The failure to find alkaline phosphatase on the rape kit materials ruled out the presence of semen, and Kenny's reading on line does not void that.

Again we have Kenny trying to bullshit his way around and through facts which do not mesh with his presumption of guilt on the part of the falsely accused Lacrosse players.; September 25, 2017 at 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Yet more from Kenny:

"Lab director Meehan is a liar".

Lab director Meehan admitted under oath he and Nifong agreed to withhold evidence from the Lacrosse players, whom Nifong had publicly accused of perpetrating the rape of Crystal. Then he tried to explain his way out of why he did that. It was F. Lane Williamson who characterized Meehan as Mr. Obfuscation.

So Kenny is calling out Attorney Williamson because Attorney Williamson did not buy into Kenny's guilt presumption.; September 25, 2017 at 10:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Yet more from Kenny:

"Author William Cohan is a liar"

Cohan never provided any source notes or bibliography in his pathetic attempt at a book. There is no evidence he ever told the truth in his book, just like there is no evidence Crystal ever told the truth when she claimed she had been raped.

Cohan cites Nifong as saying that AG Cooper's investigators felt sandbagged when AG Cooper said at his press conference that he and his investigators believed the accused Lacrosse players were innocent. According to one investigator, James Coman, the investigators told the AG that the accused were innocent. Cohan never talked to any of the AG's investigators to verify what Nifong had said. That shows Cohan was not interested at getting to the truth.; September 25, 2017 at 10:46 AM
Anonymous said...: One more from Kenny:

"Your example of what you call me lying reminds me of badgering Prosecutor Coggins-Franks confusing Crystal about minutiae of time and space in her violent encounter with drunken, jealous, enraged Daye and then calling her a liar in front of the jury if she happened to mix anything up."

Prosecutor Coggins-Franks pointed out the inconsistencies in Crystal's testimony. There was no drunken jealous rage on the part of Reginald Daye. Crystal did try to lie her way out of a murder conviction.; September 25, 2017 at 10:48 AM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Just to go over some of the events that upset you so much:
In September of last year, I referred to an exchange which you and I had had in
February of 2015. Your reply was, "We never had that exchange. Guiowen is trying to make a point by talking about things which he thinks that I might have said," or words to that effect. When I showed you proof that that exchange had in fact occurred, you came back with some weaselly excuse about how you couldn't remember things because of context. You then complained that calling you out for your lies was an ad hominem attack.
Last week I pointed out that you had on occasion lied and then tried to cover it up by talking about context. You asked for specifics, which I gave you. At that point you blew up and gave us your incredible tirade of 9:49 (this morning), saying (more or less) that you're in good company because so many wonderful persons tend to agree with your tall stories.; September 25, 2017 at 10:58 AM
kenhyderal said...: If I had forgotten saying it, then me saying, "I did not say that" would not be a lie. That is, of course, unless I was lying about not remembering and I had in fact remembered what I'd said, in a different context thirty-one months before. Because I support Crystal and believe she was raped at the Duke Lacrosse Party, the Duke Lacrosse Apologists, like Guiowen, desperately need to label me, along with any others who hold such a damning beliefs about their precious saintly lads as someone resorting to lies to see them wrongly punished and Crystal wrongly vindicated.; September 25, 2017 at 2:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"If I had forgotten saying it, then me saying, "I did not say that" would not be a lie. That is, of course, unless I was lying about not remembering and I had in fact remembered what I'd said, in a different context thirty-one months before. Because I support Crystal and believe she was raped at the Duke Lacrosse Party, the Duke Lacrosse Apologists, like Guiowen, desperately need to label me, along with any others who hold such a damning beliefs about their precious saintly lads as someone resorting to lies to see them wrongly punished and Crystal wrongly vindicated."

As the Lacrosse team did nothing to Crystal, go ahead and damn the innocentmen. It as meaningful as the movement to damn Christ as a blasphemer.

Why do you get suck a charge out of believing, in the face of zero evidence, that Crystl was raped.

Your damning of the innocent Lacrosse players damns no one but you.; September 25, 2017 at 2:55 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
I'm sorry your memory is so poor.
However, you did accuse me of making up a story. Here's what you said:

"He has to resort to things he thinks I nay have said to justify calling me intellectually dishonest"

You've never apologized for it. Not that your apologies are worth anything.; September 25, 2017 at 6:14 PM
guiowen said...: By the way, Kenny, from February 5 2015 to September 1 2016 is only 19 monhs, not 31.; September 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. A. Said: "No one ever called Dr. Manly a liar"......................................... K.C. Johnson, the notorious Duke hater and Duke Lacrosse Apologist in one of his anti-Duke pro Lacrosse Player screeds on Durham-in-Wonderland said, "When Levicy falsely mischaracterized the SAE as being consistent with rape to police and prosecutors , Manly did not to our knowlege come forward to correct Levicy's false statements"; September 25, 2017 at 8:32 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "By the way, Kenny, from February 5 2015 to September 1 2016 is only 19 months, not 31."..................................... Of course but it came up again yesterday; September 25, 2017 at 8:33 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "I'm sorry your memory is so poor"........... I'm sorry I forgot what I said to you in a different and unrelated context NINTEEN MONTHS before; September 25, 2017 at 8:39 PM
guiowen said...: So if you forgot, why did you accuse me of making up stories? An honorable man would have said, "I'm sorry, Guiowen, when exactly did that exchange take place?"; September 25, 2017 at 9:40 PM
Doogie Howser said...: kenhyderal,

I do not believe that you are telling lies on this blog. Other posters are doing their best to trap you with trivial and meaningless points. Do not be deterred from your mission of being a defender of justice.; September 26, 2017 at 5:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Wait...Wasn't Sid supposed to SHART this past weekend? Feeling disappointed :(; September 26, 2017 at 1:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney says:

Regarding Crystal, I believe that her release will be imminent.

As you were.

August 26, 2017 at 11:36 AM

September 26, 2017 It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'imminent' is....; September 26, 2017 at 4:37 PM
kenhyderal supporter said...: Thank you Doogie.; September 26, 2017 at 6:45 PM
Anonymous said...: When a crime that is being alleged is extremely unusual from a statistical standpoint there's reason to be skeptical of its veracity.Every year in this country there are 30-400 thousand cases of black men raping white women but only 0-10 cases of white raping black women.It was one,but certainly not the only reason, to doubt that Crystal Mangum was telling the truth.; September 26, 2017 at 9:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Crystal' projected release date is now listed on the DOC as January 4, 2027. It was earlier listed as February 27, 2026.

Does anyone know the reason for the change?; September 27, 2017 at 4:45 AM
Doogie Howser said...: kenhyderal supporter,

Like you and kenhyderal, I am a seeker of justice.; September 27, 2017 at 5:20 AM
guiowen said...: Is this true, Sidney? Have you actually lengthened Crystal's time by 10 months?

Crystal' projected release date is now listed on the DOC as January 4, 2027. It was earlier listed as February 27, 2026.; September 27, 2017 at 6:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said,

"Crystal' projected release date is now listed on the DOC as January 4, 2027. It was earlier listed as February 27, 2026."

Nice. That gives Sid more time to get her released.; September 27, 2017 at 8:19 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Is this true, Sidney? Have you actually lengthened Crystal's time by 10 months?

Crystal' projected release date is now listed on the DOC as January 4, 2027. It was earlier listed as February 27, 2026.

September 27, 2017 at 6:44 AM

gui, mon ami,

This is the first I've heard of any extension regarding Crystal's sentence. I don't know how I could possibly be in any way responsible for it. Do you have any thoughts about that?

But, it'll all be moot. I'm planning on having her released... hopefully before Christmas. I don't think it'll be long; she will be out soon.; September 27, 2017 at 10:54 AM
A Lawyer said...: But, it'll all be moot. I'm planning on having her released... hopefully before Christmas. I don't think it'll be long; she will be out soon.

How many times have we heard that before?

It reminds me of the old Rocky & Bullwinkle show, where Bullwinkle would always say, "this time for sure!"; September 27, 2017 at 11:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney said" But, it'll all be moot. I'm planning on having her released... hopefully before Christmas. I don't think it'll be long; she will be out soon."

A Lawyer:

"How many times have we heard that before?

It reminds me of the old Rocky & Bullwinkle show, where Bullwinkle would always say, 'this time for sure!'"

A Lawyer, you are insulting Rocky and Bullwinkel, comparing them to Sidney.; September 28, 2017 at 1:32 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 543 of 543 Newer› Newest»

Thursday, July 20, 2017

A stacked deck in the courthouse

543 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me