justice4nifong: Perpetuating the Unproven as Fact

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Perpetuating the Unproven as Fact

285 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 285 of 285

Anonymous said...: Who or what is ibes?; January 27, 2018 at 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Ubes is actually Kenny's worst nightmare.; January 27, 2018 at 5:26 PM
JSwift said...: Sidney, congratulations! This sharlog is a brilliant parody, which accurately captures the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of many of the apologists for Mike Nifong and Crystal Magnum.

Even the title of the sharlog, “Perpetuating the Unproven as Fact,” goes straight to the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of the apologists. Unable to provide any evidence to support Mangum’s claim that she was sexually assaulted at the lacrosse party, they revert to the ambiguous allegation that Something Happened® and rely on the failure of the DPD to conduct a bona fide investigation to assert that this ambiguous allegation has not been proven false. The apologists use this failure to disprove a negative to argue by assertion that Mangum was a victim. Your insertion of Mangum into the Time magazine cover as another “victim” exemplified by the #MeToo movement was ingenious. This heroic victimhood represents the culmination of the apologists’ hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

In the guise of an apologist for Mangum, you complain that she has been called a “liar” and described as a “false accuser.”

Although many have inferred from Mangum’s conflicting and contradictory allegations that she deliberately lied, her motivation has never been proven. Indeed, Cooper suggested, based on her sealed mental health records, that she was delusional and believed her allegations. Any assertion that she is a liar remains an opinion, albeit one that has evidence to support it.

Your facetious complaint that Magnum was inaccurately labeled a “false accuser” demonstrates the absolute dishonesty of Mangum’s apologists. To highlight this deception, you intentionally misstate the facts. Mangum’s specific allegation has been proven false with virtual certainty. According to the definition, Magnum has been proven to be a “false accuser.”

This allegation was outlined in her April 6 statement, together with her selection of defendants on April 4 (when she identified four of her three alleged attackers). She alleged that attackers ejaculated in her vagina, they ejaculated in her anus, and they ejaculated in her mouth. The failure to find DNA that matched the defendants in and on Magnum in a SANE examination conducted hours after the alleged attack proved beyond all doubt that the specific attack described by Mangum did not occur. That failure proved Magnum to be a false accuser.

The apologists respond to the fact that Mangum’s specific allegation has been proven false by ignoring her specific allegation and relying on an allegation she did not make (at least until December) to insist that Something Happened®. In his own parodies, kenhyderal has advanced the creative theory that Mystery Rapists® raped Magnum at the lacrosse party.

Sidney, once again I congratulate you on a brilliant parody. You and kenhyderal deserve enormous credit for the consistent work you have done for years highlighting the hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty and outright lies that characterize arguments of the Magnum and Nifong apologists. You and kenny have endured abuse and criticism from those who fail to understand your satire (including myself). For that I apologize.

Well done!; January 27, 2018 at 6:26 PM
Anonymous said...: At least Kenny acknowledges that the 3 accused did not commit the alleged rape.

Progress!; January 27, 2018 at 7:42 PM
Pubes Supporter said...: Kenny, Is Ubes your worst nightmare?; January 27, 2018 at 8:22 PM
Anonymous said...: From Ubes.

Yes I am Kenny's worst nightmare.; January 28, 2018 at 2:33 AM
Anonymous said...: January 27, 2018 at 7:42 PM

What Kenny actually did was claim that Nifong did not have them indicted for rape but for sexual assault and kidnapping, believing that there had been a rape in which they were involved, believing they would finger the rapists. Kenny deserves zero credit for anything.; January 28, 2018 at 2:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Right on J Swift.

I am waiting to see Sidney's and Kenny's next attempts at bullshitting their way around and through facts which do not mesh with their guilt presuming racism.; January 28, 2018 at 2:37 AM
Pubes Supporter said...: Kenny, What do you think about that?; January 28, 2018 at 5:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney and Kenny right now are too intimidated to try to bullshit their way around and through these facts which do not mesh with their racist guilt presumption, and may remain that way for several days.

Or they will post something totally delusional and inane.; January 28, 2018 at 2:18 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ JSwift: You are guilty of the very thing you are accusing Dr. Harr of. You know full well he is nothing but sincere in his advocacy for causes that you are against and his advocacies are, in no way a guise. Your sarcastic post congratulating him for successfully deceiving people is in itself a total pretense on your part and most unkind. Sarcasm has always been a weapon of many Duke Lacrosse Apologists but is new to you. You used to attack positions by invoking classical logic with all it's inherent limitations (all vs. most vs. many vs. some) and premises at odds with human reasoning and experience; pointing out what, in the abstract, are fallacies but which the common man using common experience, common sense, intuition and reason see through and reject. eg. poor defenceless college lads at the mercy of crafty femme fatale, Crystal Mangum. Have you never been to a spring break drunken bash with a bunch of entitled, misogynist sports jocks. Any university! Not pretty! No denying it's a national disgrace.; January 28, 2018 at 9:40 PM
guiowen said...: Good old Kenny telling us how great he and Crystal are.
Why don't you do something worthwhile such as finding your fat friend Kilgo? Are you afraid he'll prove to be as useless as you?; January 28, 2018 at 10:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal trying to bullshit hi way through and around fact which do not mesh with his guilt presuming racism:

"@ JSwift: You are guilty of the very thing you are accusing Dr. Harr of. You know full well he is nothing but sincere in his advocacy for causes that you are against and his advocacies are, in no way a guise."

Well, Hitler was sincere(HEIL KENNY);the people who persecuted the Scottsboro boys were sincere. The Ku Klux Klan was sincere; the white nationalists who paraded in Charlotte were sincere; Idi Amin was sincere; Papa Doc Duvalier was sincere; the Hutus who slaughtered the Tutsis in Rwanda were sincere. The Las Vegas shooter was sincere; the man who deliberately drove his truck into a crowd of people in New York was sincere; Timothy Mcveigh was sincere; Charles Manson was sincere. Sincerity in a reprehensible cause is nothing to admire, and crusading to put innocent men for a crime which never happened, which you and Nifong and Sidney have crusaded for is a reprehensible cause.

"Your sarcastic post congratulating him for successfully deceiving people is in itself a total pretense on your part and most unkind. Sarcasm has always been a weapon of many Duke Lacrosse Apologists but is new to you."

Says Kenny, the apologist for a false rape accuser/victimizer/murderess. The people to whom he refers as "Duke Lacrosse Apologists are apologists for innocent men viciously and wrongfully accused of perpetrating a crime which never happened. The thing is, no matter how hard he has tried, Sidney has never succeeded in deceiving anyone, except himself, Crystal, and you.

"You used to attack positions by invoking classical logic with all it's inherent limitations (all vs. most vs. many vs. some) and premises at odds with human reasoning and experience; pointing out what, in the abstract, are fallacies but which the common man using common experience, common sense, intuition and reason see through and reject. eg. poor defenceless college lads at the mercy of crafty femme fatale, Crystal Mangum. Have you never been to a spring break drunken bash with a bunch of entitled, misogynist sports jocks. Any university! Not pretty! No denying it's a national disgrace."

Kenny, I say again, PROVE the indicted DUke Lacross players ever did anything bo Crystal. All you have come up with is, you need no proof because you believe Crystal. That is not exactly a demonstration that you have a clear, logical reasoning mind. It documentation only of your guilt presuming racism.; January 29, 2018 at 2:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Ubes.; January 29, 2018 at 3:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny too cowed to reply directly.; January 29, 2018 at 4:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: JSwift said...
Sidney, congratulations! This sharlog is a brilliant parody, which accurately captures the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of many of the apologists for Mike Nifong and Crystal Magnum.

Even the title of the sharlog, “Perpetuating the Unproven as Fact,” goes straight to the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of the apologists. Unable to provide any evidence to support Mangum’s claim that she was sexually assaulted at the lacrosse party, they revert to the ambiguous allegation that Something Happened® and rely on the failure of the DPD to conduct a bona fide investigation to assert that this ambiguous allegation has not been proven false. The apologists use this failure to disprove a negative to argue by assertion that Mangum was a victim. Your insertion of Mangum into the Time magazine cover as another “victim” exemplified by the #MeToo movement was ingenious. This heroic victimhood represents the culmination of the apologists’ hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

In the guise of an apologist for Mangum, you complain that she has been called a “liar” and described as a “false accuser.”...

(Paragraphs removed due to number of character restriction.)

... This allegation was outlined in her April 6 statement, together with her selection of defendants on April 4 (when she identified four of her three alleged attackers). She alleged that attackers ejaculated in her vagina, they ejaculated in her anus, and they ejaculated in her mouth. The failure to find DNA that matched the defendants in and on Magnum in a SANE examination conducted hours after the alleged attack proved beyond all doubt that the specific attack described by Mangum did not occur. That failure proved Magnum to be a false accuser.

The apologists respond to the fact that Mangum’s specific allegation has been proven false by ignoring her specific allegation and relying on an allegation she did not make (at least until December) to insist that Something Happened®. In his own parodies, kenhyderal has advanced the creative theory that Mystery Rapists® raped Magnum at the lacrosse party.

Sidney, once again I congratulate you on a brilliant parody. You and kenhyderal deserve enormous credit for the consistent work you have done for years highlighting the hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty and outright lies that characterize arguments of the Magnum and Nifong apologists. You and kenny have endured abuse and criticism from those who fail to understand your satire (including myself). For that I apologize.

Well done!

January 27, 2018 at 6:26 PM

Hey, JSwift.

Thanks for the compliments, but my sharlogs are not parodies... they're interactive mini-documentaries supported by facts.

And the facts that you wish to ignore have to do with the Grand Jury testimony of Officer Marianne Bond. Answer me this: Do you disagree with my assertion that Bond gave perjured testimony to the Grand Jury? I have a copy of the prosecution discovery and have yet to find anything to even remotely substantiate that Mangum stole the two cashier's checks.

Because she gave perjured testimony, Officer Bond is an impeached witness and her testimony before the Grand Jury is therefore not credible... am I right? Because she was the sole witness before the Grand Jury, both indictments should be vacated... am I right? If the murder indictment is vacated, then the second degree murder conviction should be overturned... am I right? (Rhetorical questions as the answers are overwhelmingly YES!!)

Also, factually, the discrepancies between writings and testimony of Dr. Clay Nichols when compared with medical and hospital records of Daye support that the medical examiner gave perjured testimony at trial and that his autopsy report was fraudulent and flawed.

If you are interested in parodies, may I suggest MAD Magazine... or one of many mainstream media news articles about Crystal Mangum.; January 29, 2018 at 6:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr(in response to JSwift's substantia:

"Hey, JSwift.

Thanks for the compliments, but my sharlogs are not parodies... they're interactive mini-documentaries supported by facts."

They are garbage supported by your delusional fantasies, not facts. You try to present as fact that Crystal was the victim/accuser in th Duke Rape cs when she was the victimizer in the Duke Rape HOAX. That you spout off that no one ever proved Crystal ever lied about being raped is more garbge. To establish she had been raped you hav t establish she told the truth and you hav never presnted any factual evidence she ever told the truth.

"And the facts that you wish to ignore have to do with the Grand Jury testimony of Officer Marianne Bond. Answer me this: Do you disagree with my assertion that Bond gave perjured testimony to the Grand Jury? I have a copy of the prosecution discovery and have yet to find anything to even remotely substantiate that Mangum stole the two cashier's checks."

My own personal opinion is, and I have stated this before, you do not have the legal training or experience to know what constitutes perjury, as is more than adequately documented by all your frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits.

"Because she gave perjured testimony, Officer Bond is an impeached witness and her testimony before the Grand Jury is therefore not credible... am I right?"

The question is, o you know what you are talking about, and you have more than ovrwhelmingly documented that you do not.

"Because she was the sole witness before the Grand Jury, both indictments should be vacated... am I right? If the murder indictment is vacated, then the second degree murder conviction should be overturned... am I right? (Rhetorical questions as the answers are overwhelmingly YES!!)"

Again, the question is, do you know what you are talking about. I repeat. You don't. and you have provided the evidence you don't.

"Also, factually, the discrepancies between writings and testimony of Dr. Clay Nichols when compared with medical and hospital records of Daye support that the medical examiner gave perjured testimony at trial and that his autopsy report was fraudulent and flawed.

A third case of you ignoring the essential issue, do you know what you are talking about. However this time, you not only lack the legl background, you lack the clinicalbackground. You may have somehow gotten an MD Degree appended to your name but, and I am repeating, you were never accepted into residency, you never achieved any kind of medical board specialty certification, and you spent most of your post medical school filing and losing frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits. That is a background which does not at all qualify you as a medical expert capable of understanding clinical situations. To understand the Reginald Daye scenario, you would have had to have experience in performing surgery and in performing autopsies. Not that I expect you to believe me, but i have.

"If you are interested in parodies, may I suggest MAD Magazine... or one of many mainstream media news articles about Crystal Mangum. comment)."

I agree that your sharlogs are not parodies. TO produce a parody, one must be very intelligent, and racist guilt presumption, your resentment of others who are more accomplished than you and better off than you is no substitute for intelligence.; January 29, 2018 at 7:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Any update on your lawsuits Sid? You have a bunch going, and haven't talked about any for a while - which usually means they are getting tossed out.; January 29, 2018 at 7:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

Example of your delusional attitude towards the legal system:

Your mantra, in one way or another is,prove my allegations are not meritorious.

Your obligation is, if you make an allegation YOU have to show it has merit.; January 29, 2018 at 9:34 AM
A Lawyer said...: Because she gave perjured testimony, Officer Bond is an impeached witness and her testimony before the Grand Jury is therefore not credible... am I right? Because she was the sole witness before the Grand Jury, both indictments should be vacated... am I right? If the murder indictment is vacated, then the second degree murder conviction should be overturned... am I right? (Rhetorical questions as the answers are overwhelmingly YES!!)

The answers are NOT overwhelmingly "yes." I am not a North Carolina lawyer, so I can't swear that North Carolina follows this rule, but the rule in federal court and in most states is that, once there has been a trial, only the evidence presented at trial is considered; the fact that the evidence before the grand jury was inadequate (or even nonexistent) does NOT require the indictment to be vacated or the conviction to be set aside. See, for example, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Costello v. United States, here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/350/359/case.html; January 29, 2018 at 10:45 AM
THE GREAT KILGO said...: Kenhyderal, please help me! I am being hiuzcvww456ruirfu8k; January 29, 2018 at 2:05 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. A said: "Not that I expect you to believe me, but i have."..... Why not tell us your name then? Dr. A. also said: "TO produce a parody, one must be very intelligent, and racist guilt presumption, your resentment of others who are more accomplished than you and better off than you is no substitute for intelligence"........................ Can anyone explain this convoluted promulgation of incomprehensible syntax that obscurely connects racism resentment and intelligence?; January 29, 2018 at 5:04 PM
guiowen said...: Very simply, Kenny, if you were intelligent you would not be a racist. We've seen what a racist you are. Of course it helps that you resent everyone who is not the same color as you.
Get it?; January 29, 2018 at 6:20 PM
kenhyderal said...: I wonder how many people on this blog, other than you, who do not post anonymously, honestly believe I am a racist? Being, unfairly and without cause, called a racist is wrong but it's nothing compared with what African Americans constantly face being the victim of real systemic and personal racism.; January 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Anyone who believed the Duke lacrosse players were guilty just because of their skin color is a racist.; January 29, 2018 at 10:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. A said: "Not that I expect you to believe me, but i have."..... Why not tell us your name then?"

STEW KENNY STEW

"Dr. A. also said: 'TO produce a parody, one must be very intelligent, and racist guilt presumption, your resentment of others who are more accomplished than you and better off than you is no substitute for intelligence'........................ Can anyone explain this convoluted promulgation of incomprehensible syntax that obscurely connects racism resentment and intelligence?"

I can explain why you say this. You lack the capacity to understand; January 30, 2018 at 2:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"I wonder how many people on this blog, other than you, who do not post anonymously, honestly believe I am a racist? Being, unfairly and without cause, called a racist is wrong but it's nothing compared with what African Americans constantly face being the victim of real systemic and personal racism."

I say again, Kenny, not that you will be able to comprehend:

Nifong pandered to racist sentiments in the black population in Durham by prosecuting the Lacrosse defendants after he had proclaimed. before he investigated the case(not that he ever did investigate adequately) that the crime had happened, that members of the Lacrosse tam had perpetrated the crime, and that it ha been racially motivated, hoping that the support of the black electorate would get him elected(one instance in which Nifong was right). You support his wrongful prosecution, which was and is racist on your part.

And:

You have been challenged to provide factual evidence which shows Crystal had been raped, to prove Crystal had been raped. Your response was, you did not need proof because you trusted Crystal. I directed you to the case of the Scottsboro boys, in which black men were persecuted for raping white women, and pointed out to you the glaring similarities of your position to that of the Scottsboro persecutors. Your attitude towards the Lacrosse defendants is as racist as the attitude of the Scottsboro persecutors.; January 30, 2018 at 2:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Your attitude at being outed as racist:

:DENY DENY DENY DENY DENY DENY DENY and DENY AGAIN.; January 30, 2018 at 4:49 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: A Lawyer said...
Because she gave perjured testimony, Officer Bond is an impeached witness and her testimony before the Grand Jury is therefore not credible... am I right? Because she was the sole witness before the Grand Jury, both indictments should be vacated... am I right? If the murder indictment is vacated, then the second degree murder conviction should be overturned... am I right? (Rhetorical questions as the answers are overwhelmingly YES!!)

The answers are NOT overwhelmingly "yes." I am not a North Carolina lawyer, so I can't swear that North Carolina follows this rule, but the rule in federal court and in most states is that, once there has been a trial, only the evidence presented at trial is considered; the fact that the evidence before the grand jury was inadequate (or even nonexistent) does NOT require the indictment to be vacated or the conviction to be set aside. See, for example, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Costello v. United States, here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/350/359/case.html

January 29, 2018 at 10:45 AM

Hey, A Lawyer.

Thanks for the comment and the citation... however there's a big difference between Costello v. United States and Mangum's position regarding the Malicious Prosecution related to the Grand Jury Indictment. To begin with, Costello has to do with the quality of the evidence... hearsay evidence presented before the Grand Jury. In Mangum's case the issue has to do with the credibility of the witness before the Grand Jury... the witness being Officer Marianne Bond. Her evidence in the Larceny of Chose in Action charge was worse than hearsay... it was willfully false; and in giving that testimony she committed perjury, a Class F Felony. Although Bond's evidence was not challenged regarding the murder charge, because she was an impeached witness on the larceny charge in the same hearing... and more importantly the only witness in the hearing, the murder indictment is thereby compromised and therein lies the basis for its being vacated.

Could you find any case law that deals with the credibility of the witness?

Thanks, again for your contribution here.; January 30, 2018 at 5:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr's latest

"A Lawyer said...
Because she gave perjured testimony, Officer Bond is an impeached witness and her testimony before the Grand Jury is therefore not credible... am I right? Because she was the sole witness before the Grand Jury, both indictments should be vacated... am I right? If the murder indictment is vacated, then the second degree murder conviction should be overturned... am I right? (Rhetorical questions as the answers are overwhelmingly YES!!)

The answers are NOT overwhelmingly "yes." I am not a North Carolina lawyer, so I can't swear that North Carolina follows this rule, but the rule in federal court and in most states is that, once there has been a trial, only the evidence presented at trial is considered; the fact that the evidence before the grand jury was inadequate (or even nonexistent) does NOT require the indictment to be vacated or the conviction to be set aside. See, for example, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Costello v. United States, here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/350/359/case.html

January 29, 2018 at 10:45 AM

Hey, A Lawyer.

Thanks for the comment and the citation... however there's a big difference between Costello v. United States and Mangum's position regarding the Malicious Prosecution related to the Grand Jury Indictment. To begin with, Costello has to do with the quality of the evidence... hearsay evidence presented before the Grand Jury. In Mangum's case the issue has to do with the credibility of the witness before the Grand Jury... the witness being Officer Marianne Bond. Her evidence in the Larceny of Chose in Action charge was worse than hearsay... it was willfully false; and in giving that testimony she committed perjury, a Class F Felony. Although Bond's evidence was not challenged regarding the murder charge, because she was an impeached witness on the larceny charge in the same hearing... and more importantly the only witness in the hearing, the murder indictment is thereby compromised and therein lies the basis for its being vacated.

Could you find any case law that deals with the credibility of the witness?

Thanks, again for your contribution here."

Sidney, contrary to your megalomaniacal delusions, the courts, not you, establish whether or not perjury or any other crime or tort ever took place; January 30, 2018 at 5:34 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. A Said: "Your attitude at being outed as racist: :DENY DENY DENY DENY DENY DENY DENY and DENY AGAIN"..............................Want to make a lie seem true? Say it AGAIN,AGAIN,AGAIN and AGAIN .https://www.theodysseyonline.com/reverse-racism-isnt-thing; January 30, 2018 at 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. A Said: "Your attitude at being outed as racist: :DENY DENY DENY DENY DENY DENY DENY and DENY AGAIN"..............................Want to make a lie seem true? Say it AGAIN,AGAIN,AGAIN and AGAIN .https://www.theodysseyonline.com/reverse-racism-isnt-thing"

Shich is exactly what you do each and every time you preach Crystal was the victim of a sexual assault at the Lacrosse party on March 13/14 2006.

And you are a guilt presuming racist who does not like people who have less melanin in their skin than you do and who are better off and more accomplished than you are.; January 30, 2018 at 10:46 AM
Anonymous said...: dKennyu, if reverse racism is not real, how did Nifong manage to get elected by strring up black racist attitudes towards the Lacrosse players he wrongfully prosecuted for a crime which nevr happened, a phony crime in which a black woman was the accuser and the Caucasian men were the accused.

How did the Tawana Brawley hoax happen, Black race baiters falsely accusing Caucasian men of raping Tawana Brawley.

What about the bus incident in Albany NY. Black coeds from SUNY Albany assaulted a Caucasian woman on a bus, then tried to claim they had been assaulted on bye bus by Caucasian people. Survveillance vidos showed they were the aggressors.

Ye, white people have been guilty of racism. When you react to innocent Caucasian men being falsely accused of a sex crime against a black woman, the same way the persecutors of the Scottsboro boys acted against the black men who were accused of raping two white women, you are just as racist as they were, regardlss of what you may dig up on the net.; January 30, 2018 at 10:54 AM
Anonymous said...: OOPS!!

Correction of a typo:

Kenhyderal:

"Dr. A Said: "Your attitude at being outed as racist: :DENY DENY DENY DENY DENY DENY DENY and DENY AGAIN"..............................Want to make a lie seem true? Say it AGAIN,AGAIN,AGAIN and AGAIN .https://www.theodysseyonline.com/reverse-racism-isnt-thing"

Which is exactly what you do each and every time you preach Crystal was the victim of a sexual assault at the Lacrosse party on March 13/14 200; January 30, 2018 at 10:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal

Have you ever heard of the Charles Stuart case?

Charles Stuaer shot and killed his pregnant wife ro collect insurance money.He claimed black man shot him(he also shot himself to avoid the responsibility.

Police rounded up a number of black men.

Should the police have adopted an attitude of, we trust him so we won't look for anyone other than a black man. You would no doubt call that racist.

Your attitude towards the Lacrosse case is, you acknowledge you have zero factual proof that the alleged rape ever occurred. You have said you do not need proof because you believe Crystal.

So explain why, in view of the fact that the accuser had more melanin in her skin than did the accused, that is not a racist attitude.

I say this is res ipsa loquitur rhat you are racist

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2014/10/22/the-charles-stuart-murders-and-the-racist-branding-boston-just-cant-seem-to-shake; January 30, 2018 at 2:07 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: " And you are a guilt presuming racist who does not like people who have less melanin in their skin than you do and who are better off and more accomplished than you are".................... Can you believe this person? Obviously race obsessed and holding attitudes centuries out of date. Not only that but intimating that because of his race he is wealthier and more accomplished than those of us who are not. Melanin??? And this guy is a Doctor?? Who here really buys this sort of nonsense?; January 30, 2018 at 2:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Latest from Kenny:

"'Dr. Anonymous said: " And you are a guilt presuming racist who does not like people who have less melanin in their skin than you do and who are better off and more accomplished than you are'.................... Can you believe this person? Obviously race obsessed and holding attitudes centuries out of date."

Kenny trying to dodge and duck the truth that he is racist in his attitudes.

"Not only that but intimating that because of his race he is wealthier and more accomplished than those of us who are not."

I am insuating nothing. I a, STATING my belief, and have backed it up with evidence from Kenny himself, that hos attitude is racist. I have stated that Kenny resents certain people who have much less melanin in their skin, and he resents them because they are people who are more accomplished than he is.

"Melanin??? And this guy is a Doctor?? Who here really buys this sort of nonsense?"

You are shoeing me you resent me because I am more accomplished and better off than you are. Considering what you have posted in this blog, that id nor exactly a great accomplishment; January 30, 2018 at 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, hve you heard this one:

Make the lie big. make it simple, keep saying ir, and eventually they will believe it.

That is from Adolf Hitler, and it describes how you and Sidney are pushing theDuke RAPE Hoax.; January 30, 2018 at 2:26 PM
Pubes Supporter said...: Udaman Ubes.; January 31, 2018 at 3:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdSDmMKarOM

This is from Nifong's ethics trial, which I know you will react to the way the Devil reacts to holy water, Marsha Goodenow, an experienced prosecutor is asked if it is usual for a prosecutor to pursue rape charges when the only evidence is the accuser's allegation and the accuser is inconsistent in the story she tlls. Ms. Goodenow, who knows more about the law than you do, responded that she never has proceeded on rape charges with only the accuser's accusation and she did not think it would be proper for any prosecutor to do so. Those were not her words but that was the information she gave.

You have harped repeatedly that Crystal always maintained she had been raped, and for all your ranting and raving you have never come up with any factual evidence to corroborate her allegations. Saying no one ever proved she lied, I say again, in view of the prosecution's obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, is of no legal weight. In spite of your denials, you have strongly indicated you do believe the Lacrosse defendants were guilty. How can they be guilty of a crime for which no factual evidence exists. You say you fight for justice. You are fighting for injustice, presume the Lacrosse defendants are guilt simply because their accuser had more melanin in her skin than they did.; January 31, 2018 at 7:49 AM
Anonymous said...: To be fair, there is overwhelming, irrefutable, fully vetted, documented proof that Crystal lied about being raped. That is why the charges were dismissed, the AG felt compelled to take the extraordinary step of making a declaration of actual innocence, Nifong was disbarred and the falsely accused lacrosse players were compensated. It is also why Crystal has not and never will sue anyone for properly reporting her as the false rape accuser. That is what she did and it is who she is. Wherever she goes and whatever else she may do in life, she will always be known as the woman who lied about being raped. If she found the cure for cancer and it was reported in the news, the first thing many people would say is "Isn't she the woman who lied about being raped?" It is why the Me Too movement wants nothing to do with her. Her inclusion on Sid's doctored Time cover reminds me of a "One of These Things Isn't Like the Rest" puzzle.; January 31, 2018 at 10:44 AM
the great kilgo said...: Kenhyderal, please help me! Shooto is hold[oz[09cv7;oz; January 31, 2018 at 2:23 PM
Ubes Supporter said...: Udaman Ubes.; January 31, 2018 at 3:40 PM
Ubes Supporter said...: Ubes,

Is Kenny too much of a coward to answer your posts?; January 31, 2018 at 5:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey Sidney:

I was reaading some of your od posts about the Lacrosse team describing them as a wild, irresponsible out of control hooligans. something thoroughly disproved by Professor Coleman's report(just to refresh you recollection, James Coleman is a professor of Law at Duke University, someone you inappropriately characterize as your friend,the fellow you claim intervened for you when you violated Duke's non solicitation policy-your recording of the incident documents you tried to dragoon him into the situation).

What you are doing to the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse team is the moral equivalent of racial profiling. Your wacko-lyte Kenny does the same thing when he talks about the Lacrosse team.; February 1, 2018 at 3:24 AM
Ubes Supporter said...: Ubes,

Is Kenny afraid to respond to your posts?; February 1, 2018 at 3:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

You DID try to perpetrate a fraud. You DID try to delude the pubic into believing Crystal was one of Time's Persons of the Year.; February 2, 2018 at 2:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Kenny Hyderal:

Here's a piece of reverse racism from the Duke Rape Hoax:

After then AG Coper's Press Conference in which he said he and his investigators believed(he did not proclaim them innocent-that has been in the press but Sidney tries to push it as Gospel truth which is more harrian hypocrisy as sidney does not know the significance of the Gospels) that the Lacrosse players were innocent because their investigation turned up zero evidence the crime had happened.

A black woman commentator said something to the effect, no we will never know what happened in that bthroom.

Another commentator came back with the truth, we do know what happened, nothing happened.; February 2, 2018 at 3:09 AM
Ubes Supporter said...: Ubes,

Where is the coward Kenny Edwards?; February 2, 2018 at 3:22 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

You DID try to perpetrate a fraud. You DID try to delude the pubic into believing Crystal was one of Time's Persons of the Year.

February 2, 2018 at 2:19 AM

Not really. I believe that visitors and commenters to this site are knowledgeable and sophisticated enough to have already seen the actual Time magazine cover and realized that I photoshopped Mangum into it. But, the large vacancy between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift made it appear that Time magazine's intent was to allow another figure to be placed in the space. So, yeah... I took advantage of the space, but it was not my intent to mislead anyone.

Hope that this clarifies the issue.; February 2, 2018 at 5:05 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Hey Sidney:

I was reaading some of your od posts about the Lacrosse team describing them as a wild, irresponsible out of control hooligans. something thoroughly disproved by Professor Coleman's report(just to refresh you recollection, James Coleman is a professor of Law at Duke University, someone you inappropriately characterize as your friend,the fellow you claim intervened for you when you violated Duke's non solicitation policy-your recording of the incident documents you tried to dragoon him into the situation).

What you are doing to the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse team is the moral equivalent of racial profiling. Your wacko-lyte Kenny does the same thing when he talks about the Lacrosse team.

February 1, 2018 at 3:24 AM

Keep in mind that nearly a third of that team had had run-ins with with police... usually involving alcoholic consumption. They had a well-deserved reputation of discourtesy and debauchery... even to the extent of their coach being instructed (prior to the March 13, 2006 beer-guzzling/stripper-ogling party) to rein in his players.

I believe that three partygoers, possibly lacrosse team members, sexually assaulted Crystal Mangum which I believe would qualify them as being wild, out of control hooligans... at best. My indictment is not of all of the lacrosse team members, but team members with any sense of integrity and morals would not have engaged in such egregious criminal activity or allowed anyone in the house to perpetrate such crimes.

Consider yourself elucidated.; February 2, 2018 at 5:13 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
To be fair, there is overwhelming, irrefutable, fully vetted, documented proof that Crystal lied about being raped. That is why the charges were dismissed, the AG felt compelled to take the extraordinary step of making a declaration of actual innocence, Nifong was disbarred and the falsely accused lacrosse players were compensated. It is also why Crystal has not and never will sue anyone for properly reporting her as the false rape accuser. That is what she did and it is who she is. Wherever she goes and whatever else she may do in life, she will always be known as the woman who lied about being raped. If she found the cure for cancer and it was reported in the news, the first thing many people would say is "Isn't she the woman who lied about being raped?" It is why the Me Too movement wants nothing to do with her. Her inclusion on Sid's doctored Time cover reminds me of a "One of These Things Isn't Like the Rest" puzzle.

January 31, 2018 at 10:44 AM

Proof that Crystal lied? What proof? Have you seen any proof? Has the media published any proof that she was not truthful? You see, Anony, that's the difference between Mangum detractors about the Duke Lacrosse case and Mangum supporters regarding the Reginald Daye murder case... which is that evidence directly from prosecution discovery has been effusively shared with the world to support Mangum's innocence and the criminality of the state's medical examiner and the Durham police officer, and others. Evidence in the form of medical records and police reports, trial transcript, legal documents, and slanted media coverage.

To aver that it has been proven that Crystal Mangum lied just because Roy Cooper declared the three defendants innocent can best be summed up by the slogan in the Wendy's television commercial years ago: "Where's the beef?"; February 2, 2018 at 5:22 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdSDmMKarOM

This is from Nifong's ethics trial, which I know you will react to the way the Devil reacts to holy water, Marsha Goodenow, an experienced prosecutor is asked if it is usual for a prosecutor to pursue rape charges when the only evidence is the accuser's allegation and the accuser is inconsistent in the story she tlls. Ms. Goodenow, who knows more about the law than you do, responded that she never has proceeded on rape charges with only the accuser's accusation and she did not think it would be proper for any prosecutor to do so. Those were not her words but that was the information she gave.

You have harped repeatedly that Crystal always maintained she had been raped, and for all your ranting and raving you have never come up with any factual evidence to corroborate her allegations. Saying no one ever proved she lied, I say again, in view of the prosecution's obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, is of no legal weight. In spite of your denials, you have strongly indicated you do believe the Lacrosse defendants were guilty. How can they be guilty of a crime for which no factual evidence exists. You say you fight for justice. You are fighting for injustice, presume the Lacrosse defendants are guilt simply because their accuser had more melanin in her skin than they did.

January 31, 2018 at 7:49 AM

What inconsistent statements by Mangum? These are not shared with the public. However, regarding the medical examiner's autopsy report, for example, I have shown the discrepancies between the autopsy report and the operative report. That is proof. That is evidence. Regarding Officer Marianne Bond, I presented her police report of April 4, 2011 and a copy of the grand jury indictment to demonstrate proof of her impeached testimony. Roy Cooper and the Attorney General's Office never proffered evidence to the public. In Mangum's murder case, I have.

Also, keep in mind that my focus is on Mangum's murder case... and has always been on the murder case because that is the reason she has been wrongly incarcerated for six years. The Duke Lacrosse case merely provides the motive for the State and media's vicious attitudes and attacks against Mangum.; February 2, 2018 at 5:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr'smlatestattempt at Fraud:

"Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

You DID try to perpetrate a fraud. You DID try to delude the pubic into believing Crystal was one of Time's Persons of the Year.

February 2, 2018 at 2:19 AM

Not really. I believe that visitors and commenters to this site are knowledgeable and sophisticated enough to have already seen the actual Time magazine cover and realized that I photoshopped Mangum into it. But, the large vacancy between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift made it appear that Time magazine's intent was to allow another figure to be placed in the space. So, yeah... I took advantage of the space, but it was not my intent to mislead anyone.

Hope that this clarifies the issue."

Again I quote what you posted on January 11, 2018 at 2:24 PM:

"Hey, Anony... did you notice how the Time magazine cover left space between Ashley Judd and Taylor Swift? THAT SPACE WAS FOE CEYSRAL MAANGUM(emphasis added).

Simple."

What is simple is that you tried to perpetrate a fraud.; February 2, 2018 at 6:10 AM
JSwift said...: Sidney asks: Proof that Crystal lied? What proof? Have you seen any proof? Has the media published any proof that she was not truthful?

I agree that there is no definitive proof that Magnum lied.

However, as has been discussed repeatedly on this blog (and ignored by Sidney), it has been proven with virtual certainty that the specific allegations detailed in Mangum's April 6 written statement are false. The failure to find DNA that matched the defendants in a SANE examination conducted hours after the alleged attack proved that the specific allegations contained in that statement cannot be true. While I believe that she lied is the most likely explanation, that is merely an opinion that has not been proven definitively.

The fact that the specific details contained in Mangum's statement are demonstrably false does not prove that Magnum lied. There are three possible explanations: (1) she lied; (2) she is delusional and actually believes her false allegations (the explanation adopted by Cooper in explaining why he chose not to charge her with filing a false report) or (3) she was incapacitated, and, while the specific details are demonstrably false, the general allegation that she was sexually assaulted could be true, even though there is no evidence to support that general allegation and much to contradict it.

Sidney further asks: What inconsistent statements by Mangum? These are not shared with the public.

One can compare Mangum's April 6 written statement with statements attributed to her in a number of DPD police reports, as well as the special prosecutors' report (which I know that you discount because the evidence that supports that report has not been publicly released). All of this information from the original Nifong prosecution is publicly available and has been discussed repeatedly on this blog.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 2, 2018 at 6:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid - Do you bother to read your own comments?
in one post you wrote "I believe that three partygoers, possibly lacrosse team members, sexually assaulted Crystal Mangum "

In your very next statemment, you write:
"To aver that it has been proven that Crystal Mangum lied just because Roy Cooper declared the three defendants innocent...."

No -- CGM stated with certainty that she was the victim of a semen-depositing RAPE -- not "sexual assault" not "kidnapping",RAPE.

She also stated with certainty that the 3 accused LAX players committed the RAPE.

Either you are lying or she is. Which is it?; February 2, 2018 at 6:18 AM
Anonymous said...: More delusional garbage from Sidney:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Hey Sidney:

I was reaading some of your od posts about the Lacrosse team describing them as a wild, irresponsible out of control hooligans. something thoroughly disproved by Professor Coleman's report(just to refresh you recollection, James Coleman is a professor of Law at Duke University, someone you inappropriately characterize as your friend,the fellow you claim intervened for you when you violated Duke's non solicitation policy-your recording of the incident documents you tried to dragoon him into the situation).

What you are doing to the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse team is the moral equivalent of racial profiling. Your wacko-lyte Kenny does the same thing when he talks about the Lacrosse team.

February 1, 2018 at 3:24 AM

"Keep in mind that nearly a third of that team had had run-ins with with police... usually involving alcoholic consumption. They had a well-deserved reputation of discourtesy and debauchery... even to the extent of their coach being instructed (prior to the March 13, 2006 beer-guzzling/stripper-ogling party) to rein in his players."

Professor Coleman's report showed that much of this was exaggerated propaganda from the rather biased and racist gang of 88. Not surprising that a guilt presuming racist like you would buy into it.

"I believe that three partygoers, possibly lacrosse team members, sexually assaulted Crystal Mangum which I believe would qualify them as being wild, out of control hooligans... at best. My indictment is not of all of the lacrosse team members, but team members with any sense of integrity and morals would not have engaged in such egregious criminal activity or allowed anyone in the house to perpetrate such crimes."

Crystal alleged in her police statement that three members of the Lacrosse team had raped her and had deposited their DNA on her. The DNA found on her did not match he DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team, or the DNA of any other party attendee, and neither you, nor you wasko lyte Kenny, nor Kenny's imaginary friend Kilgo have ever provided any evidence of any unidentified party attendees. What you call your belief is nothing more than racially motivated guilt presumption.

"Consider yourself elucidated."

A delusional guilt presuming racist megalomaniac is incpapable of providing elucidation.I thought by now you would be tilred of having that fact jammed down your throat.; February 2, 2018 at 6:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"
Anonymous Anonymous said...
To be fair, there is overwhelming, irrefutable, fully vetted, documented proof that Crystal lied about being raped. That is why the charges were dismissed, the AG felt compelled to take the extraordinary step of making a declaration of actual innocence, Nifong was disbarred and the falsely accused lacrosse players were compensated. It is also why Crystal has not and never will sue anyone for properly reporting her as the false rape accuser. That is what she did and it is who she is. Wherever she goes and whatever else she may do in life, she will always be known as the woman who lied about being raped. If she found the cure for cancer and it was reported in the news, the first thing many people would say is "Isn't she the woman who lied about being raped?" It is why the Me Too movement wants nothing to do with her. Her inclusion on Sid's doctored Time cover reminds me of a "One of These Things Isn't Like the Rest" puzzle.

January 31, 2018 at 10:44 AM

Proof that Crystal lied? What proof? Have you seen any proof? Has the media published any proof that she was not truthful? You see, Anony, that's the difference between Mangum detractors about the Duke Lacrosse case and Mangum supporters regarding the Reginald Daye murder case... which is that evidence directly from prosecution discovery has been effusively shared with the world to support Mangum's innocence and the criminality of the state's medical examiner and the Durham police officer, and others. Evidence in the form of medical records and police reports, trial transcript, legal documents, and slanted media coverage."

Proof that Crystal Lied number 1: In her police statement Crystal alleged that members of the Lacrosse team raped her and deposited their DNA on her. The DNA found on the rape kit did not match anyone at the party, and no one has ever shown there were unidentified party attendees.

Proof that Crystal Lied number 2: Crystal alleged in her police statement that Kim RObets/Pittman had witnessed her being dragged into the bathroom, and that she had told Kim that men had hurt her. Crystal alleged Kim told her she would drive her to a Grocery Store lot and call the police. After Kim drove away with Crystal in her car, she did call the police, not to report a rape but to claim people at the party house had shouted n---er at them. When she drove Crystal to the Grocery store parking lot, she asked a security guard to forcibly remove Crystal from her car. Then when a police officer was summoned, it was to forcibly remove Crystal from kim'a car, rather serious evidence that Crystal lied

"To aver that it has been proven that Crystal Mangum lied just because Roy Cooper declared the three defendants innocent can best be summed up by the slogan in the Wendy's television commercial years ago: 'Where's the beef?'"

Here you are trying to perpetrate another fraud, to delude the public into believing AG Cooper declared the Defendants innocent. Unlike corrupt Nifong, then AG Cooper did a thorough investigation of the incident and found zero evidence that the alleged crime had happened. That the defendants were and are innocent is a matter of proven fact, not a matter of proclamation.

Your belief in their guilt, which you have manifested on many occasions, besides being racist motivated guilt presumption on your part, is what is a matter of proclamation.; February 2, 2018 at 6:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdSDmMKarOM

This is from Nifong's ethics trial, which I know you will react to the way the Devil reacts to holy water, Marsha Goodenow, an experienced prosecutor is asked if it is usual for a prosecutor to pursue rape charges when the only evidence is the accuser's allegation and the accuser is inconsistent in the story she tlls. Ms. Goodenow, who knows more about the law than you do, responded that she never has proceeded on rape charges with only the accuser's accusation and she did not think it would be proper for any prosecutor to do so. Those were not her words but that was the information she gave.

You have harped repeatedly that Crystal always maintained she had been raped, and for all your ranting and raving you have never come up with any factual evidence to corroborate her allegations. Saying no one ever proved she lied, I say again, in view of the prosecution's obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, is of no legal weight. In spite of your denials, you have strongly indicated you do believe the Lacrosse defendants were guilty. How can they be guilty of a crime for which no factual evidence exists. You say you fight for justice. You are fighting for injustice, presume the Lacrosse defendants are guilt simply because their accuser had more melanin in her skin than they did.

January 31, 2018 at 7:49 AM"

"What inconsistent statements by Mangum? These are not shared with the public."

Yes they are. There is an excerpt of William Cohan'sbook on line in which he documents Crystal'sinconsistencies.

"However, regarding the medical examiner's autopsy report, for example, I have shown the discrepancies between the autopsy report and the operative report. That is proof. That is evidence. Regarding Officer Marianne Bond, I presented her police report of April 4, 2011 and a copy of the grand jury indictment to demonstrate proof of her impeached testimony. Roy Cooper and the Attorney General's Office never proffered evidence to the public. In Mangum's murder case, I have."

You again try to perpetrate a deception when you say AG Cooper did not share evidence with the public. What AG Cooper shared was there was ZERO evidence that the crime had ever happened. Again, you say no one has ever proven Crystal lied(another deception you try to promulgate). The issue which has real legal weight is that no one ever proved Crystal ever told the truth. And that you think there are inconsistencies in Dr. Nichols' report, inconsistencies in Officer Bond's Grand Jury testimony does not establish perjury, your delusional megalomania notswithstanding.

"Also, keep in mind that my focus is on Mangum's murder case... and has always been on the murder case because that is the reason she has been wrongly incarcerated for six years. The Duke Lacrosse case merely provides the motive for the State and media's vicious attitudes and attacks against Mangum."

Another fraud you try to perpetrate. When you started this abomination of a blog, your goal was to convince the public the Lacrosse defendants were guilty. That thread has continues with Mangum's murder of Reginald Daye with your attempted fraud perpetration, namely that she was prosecuted because she accused the Lacrosse players.; February 2, 2018 at 6:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:\

Something Else:

You have referred to the AG's statement, that Crystal actually believed in what se was allrging and therefore she did not actually lie.

How does that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone actually perpetrated a crime on Crystal?

What Marsha Goodenow said in her testimony was that it was nor enough to prosecute someone for rape with just the word of the victim. In the Duke Tape Hoax,l what AG Cooper said was, there was no factual evidence that the crime ever happened

You eem to be saying, because Crystal believed she had been raped by members of the Lacrosse team then some members should have been prosecuted.

That is like saying, of some woman believed you molested her, that is enough to convict you.; February 2, 2018 at 7:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney, your attitude, Crystal believed what she was saying, says you argue her word should have been enough to convict the men she accused.

As I have said to your wacko lyte Kenny, that is the same kind of attitude the persecutors of the Scottsboro boys had towards the Scottsboro boys, the white women believed they had been raped and that should have been sufficient to convict.

You have just shown you are as racist as the persecutors of the Scottsboro boys. However, according to Kenny, the amount of melanin in your skin makes you immune to racism. In your words HAH!!! HUH!!!

Should the Scottsboro boys have been convicted solely on the word on their accusers. Why should the Lacrosse defendants have been convicted solely on Crystal's word, especially after she could not reliably identify them as assailants? I remind you, certainty does not equal reliability. At one time, people were certain cigarettes were not harmful. At one time people were certain Heroin was not addictive.; February 2, 2018 at 8:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

Getting back to your, Crystal believed these things happened to her.

There was zero factual evidence to support her allegations. You and Kenny have provided zero factual evidence to establish her allegations as fact. But you say she should be believed because she would not believe these things happened to her if they did not happen.

Legally that is crap, nothing more.

You have no factual basis for believing anyone ever raped Crystal.; February 2, 2018 at 9:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

If Nifong was so certain Crystal had been raped, why did he have to manufacture evidence?

I refer to the lineup procedure on April 4, 2006 in which she identified Reade Seligmann and Colin Finnety as rapists, identified David Evans with 90% certainty, and you seem to think certainty equates to reliability.

Glaring irregularity number 1 in that lineup procedure was that there were no fillers, pictures of people who were known not at all to be involved in the alleged crime. If there had been fillers, as Federal and State and Durham Police guidelines all required, and Crystal identified with 100 per cent certainty one of the fillers as an assailant, should that filler have been indicted? Crystal did identify Brad Ross with 100% certainty as a party attendee, and Vrad Ross shoes with 100% certainty he had not been at the party.

Glaring irregularity number 2 was, the lineup should have been conducted by an officer who would be entirely objective, not involved with the investigation. The officer who conducted the lineup was Sergeant Mark Gottlieb who was involved in the investigation and who had a known bias against Duke students.

In spite of a claim you once made, corrupt Nifong did manufacture evidence against members of the Lacrosse team. He did not get the DNA evidence he wanted which would implicate members of the Lacrosse team so he rigged a lineup to give him evidence he could take to a Grand Jury.

So explain why Crysta's allegation of rape should be accepted at face value.

Your argument that Crystal was prosecuted for murder in retaliation for her accusing members of the Lacrosse team for raping her. Your argument is totally invalid since it is obvious Crystal did fabricate the allegation.; February 3, 2018 at 3:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

That Nifong did manufacture evidence against the Lacrosse players, after the DNA evidence did not implicate any member of the Lacrosse team as a perpetrator of the alleged crime says loud and clear that Nifong himself did not regard Crystal's allegation as credible. That chose to go forwardwith the prosecution anyway is res ipsa loquitur evidence he willingly instituted a wrongful, unethical prosecution against innocent men, to win and election and pad his retirement benefits.

This is the man you refer to as a decent honorable minister of justice.

HUH???!!!; February 3, 2018 at 4:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

Explain why Nifong would prosecute members of the Lacrosse team for raping Crystal when the only evidence he had was evidence he had manufactured via the totally improper lineup procedure.; February 3, 2018 at 5:21 AM
Anonymous said...: For Kenhyderal:

You say, that because the Grand Jury handed down indictments against the Lacrosse defendants the case should have gone to trial.

It is glaringly obvious that the only evidence Nifong had to present to the Grand Jury was the evidence he had manufactured via the improper lineup procedure.

Why does a Grand Jury indictment resulting from manufacture evidence mandate a trial?; February 3, 2018 at 5:24 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't get the Kenny/Sid logic:

The Grand Jury took out indictments against the Duke Lacrosse Defendants - therefore there was "proof" of guilt, and they should have gone to trial, no matter what the later investigation showed about the evidence.

The Grand Jury took out indictments against Crystal - but she says they are false (no matter what the later investigation showed about the evidence) therefore it should be dismissed.

No wonder they worship Crystal - they think she's infallible like Jesus.

Sid, it's been a while, what's the update on your lawsuit you filed in Durham? You ever even get it served properly, or you still thinking that you dropping it off is sufficient, and wondering why you aren't getting a response?; February 3, 2018 at 5:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid does not believe in transparency when it comes to his legal filings. You can safely assume the case isn't going well; otherwise he'd be on here blowing his own horn. Instead, he'll claim he is "too busy" to post a one or two sentence update, if he says anything at all.

Sid likes to block out all record or memory of his failures. That is why he doesn't learn from them.; February 3, 2018 at 9:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, Sidney, what evidence did Nifong have to present to the Grand Jury other than the identifications from the improperly conducted lineup. Do you think Nifong would have told the Grand Jury that the lineup had been improperly conducted?

What evidence could Nifong have presented at trial?

The whitish fluid observed in Crystal's Genital tract which had been initially presumed by Dr. Manley to be semen? There are ways to determine definitively whether or not it was semen and establish a time frame during which it had been identified. Those measures were not taken. The male DNA found on Crystal's rape kit? That DNA did not match the DNA of any of the defendants Nifong had indicted and charged. Levicy's statement to the Police that injuries consistent with rape had been found. Levicy's obligation as a SANE would have been to document the specific injuries. What would have been the specific injuries? All that was found on physical exam was diffuse vaginal edema, which is a non specific finding not at all diagnostic of rape. A date rape drug had been administered to Crystal? Who would have testified to that? Kenny cites testimony from two witnesses he says said Crystal was unimpaired when she arrived at the party. There was also testimony that she sas, and Crystal herself admitted she had consumed 44 ounces of beer and then taken flexeril, a combination known to cause impairment, in spite of any claim from Crystal that she had taken the combination previously and had suffered no ill effects.

The only evidence Nifong had to present was, Crystal had identified the accused as assailants, and those identifications had come from an improperly conducted lineup procedure.

All the lack of evidence would have come out in the prosecution's case, when the Defense cross examined.

from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/motiondismiss.html: "In a criminal trial, the defendant's lawyer can ask for a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that the government has failed to prove its case."

From lhttps://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/charge-dimissal-court.htm:

Two grounds for dismissal of criminal charges prior to trial:

"lack of probable cause to arrest"

ans:

"lack of evidence to prove the defendant committed the crime"

It is obvious to anyone but a pair of guilt presuming racists that Nifong lacked probable cause, becaues he did not have any evidence to present.

Kenny argues that the indictment required the case go to trial. BULLSHIT!!!

A trial would have resulted in dismissal of all charges for lack of evidence.; February 3, 2018 at 11:18 AM
Ubes Supporter said...: Ubes,

Where is Kenny? Is he too intimidated by you to respond?; February 3, 2018 at 12:17 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "A trial would have resulted in dismissal of all charges for lack of evidence".......................................Not if DA Nifong had prosecuted the case and subpoenaed all the relevant witnesses. Despite the many deficiencies in the Police investigation, benefiting the accused, DA Nifong still believed that he could convict and so do many others especially those who have not been brain-washed by the meta-narrative perpetrated widely and successfully disseminated nation-wide, using the tried and true tactic of discrediting the victim. AG Cooper wouldn't have dared prosecute Crystal for making a false charge because that could have been easily disproved and he knew it. He opted, at the relief of those accused, to suggest she was mentally unstable and had only imagined she had been sexually assaulted. For a dream team, given all the mistakes made, it was an easy case to win. So easy in fact that it opened it up for trial lawyers to sue Duke on their behalf for millions.; February 3, 2018 at 3:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Whining again, Kenny?; February 3, 2018 at 3:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "A trial would have resulted in dismissal of all charges for lack of evidence".......................................Not if DA Nifong had prosecuted the case and subpoenaed all the relevant witnesses."

There were no witnesses for Nifng to subpoenae. Anyon Nifng subpoenad to make his cadSe would have readily aNd easily discredited by the derense.

"Despite the many deficiencies in the Police investigation, benefiting the accused,"

Which deficiencies happened because Nifong took control of the investigation, which deficiencies, like concealing exculpatory evidence and manufacturing evidence via the totally improper lineup of April 4, 2006, did not exactly benefit the defense.

"DA Nifong still believed that he could convict"

No he didn't. Otherwise he would not have concealed exculpatory evidence and would not manufactured evidence.

"and so do many others especially those who have not been brain-washed by the meta-narrative perpetrated widely and successfully disseminated nation-wide, using the tried and true tactic of discrediting the victim."

As the only metanarrative in the Duke Rape HOAX was the metanarrative that privileged Caucasian men believed they could rape a black woman with impunity, and as the false accuser had discredited herself, "those who have not been brain-washed" do not exist, except in thee delusional mind of Kemmy, who gets some kind of gratification from believing a woman he claims he likes and respects had been brutally gang raped.

"AG Cooper wouldn't have dared prosecute Crystal for making a false charge because that could have been easily disproved and he knew it."

AG Cooper knew Crystal had made false charges at the time he held the Press Conference in which he stated that he and his investigators believed the Defendants were innocent. He did not prosecute Crystal because she was delusional. Crystal has never offered any factual evidence that she told the truth. Sidney has never offered any factual evidence that Crystal told the truth. Kenny has conceded he has zero evidence that Crystal ever told the truth.

"He opted, at the relief of those accused, to suggest she was mentally unstable and had only imagined she had been sexually assaulted."

So if AG Cooper was so vulnerable, if the accusers were so vulnerable, why did Crystal and her supporters back off on filing a claim in civil court. Because they knew Crystal had no case against AG Cooper or against the Lacrosse defendants.

"For a dream team, given all the mistakes made, it was an easy case to win. So easy in fact that it opened it up for trial lawyers to sue Duke on their behalf for millions."

What opened up people like Nifong and Duke and the Durham Police to lawsuits was how obvious it was that the Duke defendants had been subjected to a wrongful prosecution.

And Kenny does a particularly ineffective attempt to bullshit his way around and through facts which do not mesh with his racist guilt presumption, a particularly spectacular job of being an apologist for a victimizer/false rape accuser/convicted murderess.

Borrowing from Dusty Springfield, Kenny's wishing and hoping a gross, racist motivated injustice will not make it happen.

So KENNY, STEW STEW STEW STEW STEW STEW and STEW AGAIN.; February 3, 2018 at 5:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, coming back to Nifong's confidence he could convict:

We have the case of Moez Elmostafa, who gave a written statement supporting Reade Seligmann's alibi, that Reade was not at the party house at the time the alleged crime allegedly happened. Nifong had him arrested on a 3 year old warrant for aiding and abetting a shop lifter. When Mr. ELmostafa was brought in, he was asked if he wanted to change his statement, he refused. He was then taken to trial. Nifong tried to intimidate a witness who gave evidence favorable to one of Nifong's suspects and Nifong tried to intimidate him into changing his testimony. If Nifong was so confident of convicting, why did he engage in witness intimidation? The police, acting under Nifong's direction, had the shop lifter in custody to have her testify against Mr. Elmostafa. She refused to do so.

Then there was the situation with Kim Roberts/Pittman whose initial statements on the case were that Crystal's allegations were a crock. She was on probation, for an embezzling charge I believe it was, and then she changed her story a bit after Nifong threatened her with a proation violation.

Why would a prosecutor who was so sure he could convict direct witness intimidation against witnesses whose testimony would have undermined the possibility of a conviction.; February 3, 2018 at 7:04 PM
guiowen said...: One would think good old Mike had used this tactic (witness intimidation) successfully in the past.; February 3, 2018 at 7:26 PM
Anonymous said...: For Kenhyderal:

With regard to relevant witnesses whom Nifong wanted to subpoenae, who would they have been?

Members of the Lacrosse tamm?

Nifong, before there had been any investigation, made public statements, a crime had happened, members of the Lacrosse team had been the perpetrators, the crime had been racially motivated, that embers of the Lacrosse team had witnessed the crime and were not coming forward, and Nifong said, in public, he would file charges of aiding and abetting against witnesses who did not come forward.

In her testimony before the ethics panel, Marsha Goodenow pointed out that threatening potential witnesses with criminal charges if they did not testify in support of the Prosecution produced tainted testimony, a witness testifying to avoid prosecution. That would have produced testimony lacking in credibility, something like a jail house informant coming forward with incriminating testimony against another individual hoping for leninency or immunity.

It would have been witness intimidation, nothing more.

It goes back to, if Nifong actually believed he could convict his suspects, why did he resort to 1) concealing exculpatory evidence, 2) witness intimidation, 3) threatening potential witnesses with criminal action if they did not give testimony which would support his case.; February 4, 2018 at 3:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, again, let's get back to Nifong and subpeonaes.

Why did Nifong make no attempt to identify the men who actually left their DNA on Crystal?

It is your contention and Sidney's contention, that unidentified party attendees raped Crystal. If that were so, then it was incumbent upon DA Nifong to identify all the males with whom Crystal had sex.

This comes down to, again, why did Nifong resort to concealing the evidence? A likely possibility is that the DNA was not deposited at the Lacrosse party and revealing the evidence to defendants would have ended Nifong's prosecution then and there. Which means Nifong was not as confident of getting a conviction as you make him out to be.; February 4, 2018 at 3:27 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid does not believe in transparency when it comes to his legal filings. You can safely assume the case isn't going well; otherwise he'd be on here blowing his own horn. Instead, he'll claim he is "too busy" to post a one or two sentence update, if he says anything at all.

Sid likes to block out all record or memory of his failures. That is why he doesn't learn from them.

February 3, 2018 at 9:31 AM

WRONG-O!! Where have you been? I almost always post relevant documents to this blog site. In fact, I will hopefully upload the January 23, 2018 Pro Se Motion for Release on Recognizance pending Habeas Petition Ruling that I filed for Crystal Mangum with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Fact is though that I have been very busy.; February 4, 2018 at 3:46 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

If Nifong was so certain Crystal had been raped, why did he have to manufacture evidence?

I refer to the lineup procedure on April 4, 2006 in which she identified Reade Seligmann and Colin Finnety as rapists, identified David Evans with 90% certainty, and you seem to think certainty equates to reliability.

Glaring irregularity number 1 in that lineup procedure was that there were no fillers, pictures of people who were known not at all to be involved in the alleged crime. If there had been fillers, as Federal and State and Durham Police guidelines all required, and Crystal identified with 100 per cent certainty one of the fillers as an assailant, should that filler have been indicted? Crystal did identify Brad Ross with 100% certainty as a party attendee, and Vrad Ross shoes with 100% certainty he had not been at the party.

Glaring irregularity number 2 was, the lineup should have been conducted by an officer who would be entirely objective, not involved with the investigation. The officer who conducted the lineup was Sergeant Mark Gottlieb who was involved in the investigation and who had a known bias against Duke students.

In spite of a claim you once made, corrupt Nifong did manufacture evidence against members of the Lacrosse team. He did not get the DNA evidence he wanted which would implicate members of the Lacrosse team so he rigged a lineup to give him evidence he could take to a Grand Jury.

So explain why Crysta's allegation of rape should be accepted at face value.

Your argument that Crystal was prosecuted for murder in retaliation for her accusing members of the Lacrosse team for raping her. Your argument is totally invalid since it is obvious Crystal did fabricate the allegation.

February 3, 2018 at 3:55 AM

Though not conceding, let's assume that the photo line-up was incorrectly administered by Nifong and his prosecutorial team. What you fail to take into consideration is intent. That is how the Duke Lacrosse case differs from Mangum's murder case.

The evidence that Durham Police Officer Marianne Bond brought before the grand jury as the only witness was knowingly false regarding the Larceny of Chose in Action charge and malicious by definition. Furthermore, it was done with a collateral purpose of elevating the murder charge to first degree.

Nifong and Mangum both did their best to properly identify her assailants in the Duke Lacrosse case... without cooperation from any of the attendees at the beer-guzzling/stripper-ogling affair.; February 4, 2018 at 3:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Sid.; February 4, 2018 at 4:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"nonymous Anonymous said...
Sid does not believe in transparency when it comes to his legal filings. You can safely assume the case isn't going well; otherwise he'd be on here blowing his own horn. Instead, he'll claim he is "too busy" to post a one or two sentence update, if he says anything at all.

Sid likes to block out all record or memory of his failures. That is why he doesn't learn from them.

February 3, 2018 at 9:31 AM

til
WRONG-O!! Where have you been? I almost always post relevant documents to this blog site. In fact, I will hopefully upload the January 23, 2018 Pro Se Motion for Release on Recognizance pending Habeas Petition Ruling that I filed for Crystal Mangum with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Fact is though that I have been very busy."

Meaning only Sidney is laboring mightily to dump more garbage on the internet.; February 4, 2018 at 5:56 AM
Anonymous said...: The fact that you still cling to felony murder shows why no one should take you seriously on anything. It has repeatedly been explained to you the larceny charges couldn’t trigger felony murder - everyone in the legal system, and everyone on this blog but you and Kenny know that. The fact you refuse to learn is proof you are either delusional, or intentionally lying. Either way, it’s proof you can’t be taken seriously because you refuse to listen, learn, and acknowledge information.; February 4, 2018 at 6:29 AM
Anonymous said...: More obscenity from Sidney Harr, in response to my anonymous comment posted on February 3, 2018 at 3:55 AM:"

Though not conceding, let's assume that the photo line-up was incorrectly administered by Nifong and his prosecutorial team. What you fail to take into consideration is intent. That is how the Duke Lacrosse case differs from Mangum's murder case."

The lineup was conducted after Crystal FAILED to identify assailants, it did not include fillers, and was conducted by SGT. Mark Gottlieb who was involved in the investigation and who was known to have a bias against Duke students, all of which added up to an improper, invalid lineup, and Nifong's intent was to manufacture evidence against members of the Lacrosse team. Again referring back to Dusty Springfield's Wishing and Hoping, your wishes and hopes that this great injustice would happen will not make it so.

"The evidence that Durham Police Officer Marianne Bond brought before the grand jury as the only witness was knowingly false regarding the Larceny of Chose in Action charge and malicious by definition. Furthermore, it was done with a collateral purpose of elevating the murder charge to first degree."

You are presuming facts not in evidence, again wishing and hoping you can perpetrate a great injustice on the world.

"Nifong and Mangum both did their best to properly identify her assailants in the Duke Lacrosse case... without cooperation from any of the attendees at the beer-guzzling/stripper-ogling affair."

Explain why what was done was a grossly improper lineup which would never have stood up in court, why what was done in no way conformed to Federal, State and Durham PD guidelines as to how to conduct a proper lineup. With 100% certainty Crystal identified as two of her assailants two men who could show with 100% certainty they had not been at the alleged crime scene at the time the alleged crime allegedly happened. She identified with 90% certainty as her assailant a man with a mustache, and the man she fingered never had a mustache. Again I remind you that Crystal, on her statement to the police, described a rape in which three men had deposited their DNA on her person. The male DNA found on her person after the alleged rape allegedly happened did not match the DNA of the men Nifong had indicted, and Nifong knew that when he sought indictments.

And explain how that adds up to "Nifong and Mangum [doing] their best to properly identify her assailants in the Duke Lacrosse case(THE DUKE RAPE HOAX!!!). You don't even know what a proper lineup is.

And there was no "beer-guzzling/stripper-ogling affair", just a bunch of prople bored silly at what was a pathetic attempt on the part of Kim and a totally impaired Crystal to perform."

"Wishing and hoping your [obscene] dreams [that a gross miscarriage of justice] will start will not bring it into your heart."; February 4, 2018 at 6:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

Let's make it glaringly obvious your delusional attempts at perpetrating a gross injustice are;

1) Crystal alleged in her police Statement that her assailants had been three members of the Lacrosse team who had left their DNA on her.

2) The DNA found on Crystal's person in the wake of her allegations did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team.

3) The Photo lineup in which Crystal was asked to identify her assailants included only photos of members of the Lacrosse team.

4) Crystal was presented a series of photographs of men who could not possibly.
have been assailants.

Just how does this add up to "Nifong and Mangum [doing] their best to properly identify her assailants in the Duke Lacrosse case"?; February 4, 2018 at 7:07 AM
Anonymous said...: For Kenhyderal, who argues that the Lacrosse case should have gone to trial:

Do you believe the defendant in a criminal trial is entitled to an impartial jury?

from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/politics-playing-role-in-duke-case/:

"Irving Joyner, a law professor at North Carolina Central University, where the alleged victim is a student, says Nifong made this case too public, too soon.

'When it's tried," Joyner told Regan, "there'll be very few people who will have not heard about the case, making an impartial jury selection almost impossible.'"

When you said Crystal was entitled to have her complaint adjudicated were you saying that Crystal was entitled to have her complaint adjudicated by an non-impartial jury?

Judging from Nifong's actions in the case the non-impartial jury would have been biased against the defendants. Would you advocate that a black defendant accused of a crime against a caucasian(a term William Cohan used to describe the members of the Lacrosse team who were ordered to give samples for DNA analysis) be tried by a jury biased against him?; February 27, 2018 at 1:09 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 285 of 285 Newer› Newest»

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Perpetuating the Unproven as Fact

285 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me