justice4nifong: Crystal Mangum's Motion for Release on Recognizance Pending Habeas Petition Ruling

Sunday, February 4, 2018

Crystal Mangum's Motion for Release on Recognizance Pending Habeas Petition Ruling

521 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 521 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: Hey Sidney, why don't you do something for your wacko-lyte Kenny.

Prove Kilgo's lacrosse player friend exists.

You can't can you.

Just like you can not prove Crystal ever told the truth when she alleged she had been raped.; February 20, 2018 at 5:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

I saw on one of your older blogs, regarding the DNA evidence found by DNA Security.

You claimed that the DNA found on Crystal was not relevant and that it was in no way exculpatory.

Explain why.; February 20, 2018 at 9:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/pji-master/criminal/105.65.pdf:

"A photo lineup shall be conducted by an independent administrator.2 An
independent administrator is person who administers a lineup, and who is not
participating in the investigation of the criminal offense and is unaware of which
person in the lineup is the suspect."

The April 4 2006 was conducted by Sgt. Mark Gottlieb who was an investigator on the Duke Lacrosse incident and was aware that members of the Lacrosse team were suspects.

"Before a lineup, the eyewitness3 shall be instructed that:
a. The perpetrator might or might not be presented in the lineup,
b. The lineup administrator does not know the suspect's identity,
c. The eyewitness should not feel compelled to make an identification,
d. It is as important to exclude innocent persons as it is to identify the
perpetrator, and
e. The investigation will continue whether or not an identification is made."

Crystal was informed that the only people in the lineup were Lacrosse team members, and this was after the Probable cause motion sought by Benjamin Himan and Mark Gottlieb saying that Crystal alleged members of the Lacrosse team had raped her

"At least five fillers shall be included in a photo lineup, in addition to the
suspect(fillers are people known to be innocent of the alleged crime)."

There were no fillers in the Aprol 4, 2006 lineup.

"Only one suspect shall be included in a lineup."

The April 4 2006 lineup included each and every Caucasian member of the Lacrosse team meaning she was presented a lineup including more than one suspect.

You have said you do not concede that the lineup was improper.

Why?; February 20, 2018 at 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney, I still think a civil suit is the way to go here. With you connecting Mangum with the #metoo movement, you could also enlist Kim Roberts. Roberts could back up Mangum and also state that she was traumatized by the whole Lacrosse incident. The defense lawyers and main stream media attention was just to much to handle at the time and now that years have passed, the real truth can come out. Such a suit would also allow you and Mangum to get all the discovery records from the Cooper investigation. This should open many more doors than what you are attempting now.; February 20, 2018 at 9:48 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "The April 4 2006 lineup included each and every Caucasian member of the Lacrosse team meaning she was presented a lineup including more than one suspect"..................................... Including twenty or so known not to be present.; February 20, 2018 at 1:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "The April 4 2006 lineup included each and every Caucasian member of the Lacrosse team meaning she was presented a lineup including more than one suspect"..................................... Including twenty or so known not to be present."

Who told you that 20 or so known not to be present You make a lot of uncorroborated allegations, the most egregious of which was, Crystal was raped.

If it did include 20 or so players known not to be present, then that is proof that Nifong was not at all interested in finding perpetrators, he was interested only in convicting members of the Lacrosse team, even though according to what was in the Probable Cause affidavit what was in and Crystal's statement to the police, no member of the Lacrosse team could have perpetrated the crime Crystal had alleged.

And it comes down to, yet again, what kind of gratification do you get from imagining that Crystal had been raped, and if it is not your black on white racism, why are you so into condemning the Lacrosse team.; February 20, 2018 at 2:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyeral:

You try to push the idea that Nifong was out for justice for Crystal.

So why did he go after men who could not have perpetrated the crime?

He had information at the time of the lineup and at the time of the Grand Jury that no member of the Lacrosse team could have perpetrated the alleged crime. Did he ever tell the Grand Jury that.

No he did not.

So where do you get off that the Grand Jury indictment was probable cause to prosecute, to take the case to trial?; February 20, 2018 at 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal, why does Sidney not want to explain that he does not concede that the lineup was improper?

Who ordered the improper lineup? NIFONG!

So again, was Nifong trying to identify perpetrators of a rape or trying to prosecute members of the Lacrosse team?; February 20, 2018 at 2:34 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "So why did he go after men who could not have perpetrated the crime?"........................................He didn't. He decided to charge the ones Crystal identified with the crime of kidnapping and sexual assault. His hope was that they would, out of fear, identify those involved in the rape.; February 20, 2018 at 3:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

'Anonymous said: "So why did he go after men who could not have perpetrated the crime?"........................................He didn't. He decided to charge the ones Crystal identified with the crime of kidnapping and sexual assault. His hope was that they would, out of fear, identify those involved in the rape."

This is another iteration of your spurious claim that Nifong did not charge the Lacrosse defendants with rape. You ARE incredibly stupid, more incredibly stupid than I initially believed, and incredibly fixated on imagining Crystal had been raped if you think you can pull off that already discredited claim.

Where do you get the idea that it is proper legal procedure to indict men for any crime in order to intimidate them into identifying others as criminals? If Nifong were truly out for justice, once he had the information that the DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of the men he had indicted for and charged with rape he would have dropped the charges against them and sought out the men who had deposited their DNA on Crystal. He did not do that. Why did he not do that?

Check out:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case#Arrests_and_investigation_timeline:

"On April 18, 2006, Seligmann and Finnerty were arrested and indicted on charges of FIRST DEGREE FORCIBLE RAPE(emphasis added), first degree sexual offense and kidnapping".

and

"On May 15, 2006, former team captain and 2006 Duke graduate[51] Evans became the third player to be indicted on charges of FIRST-DEGREE FORCIBLE RAPE(emphasis added), sexual offense and kidnapping."

How does that show Nifong intended to indict for rape anyone other than the men he had indicted?

And how could they out of fear or any other motivation identify those involved in the rape when the alleged rape never happened.

Also another iteration of you trying to bullshit your way through and around FACTS which do not mesh with your racist guilt presumption, directed against Caucasian men you dislike because they are better off and more accomplished than you are.; February 20, 2018 at 3:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty had evidence that they had not been present at the alleged crime scene when the alleged crime allegedly happened. Nifong did not want to look at Reade Seligmann's alibi. Nifong tried to intimidate a witness who supported Reade Seligmann's alibi. Moez Elmostafa was arrested on a 3 year old warrant which had been ignored until he gave evidence supporting Reade Seligman's alibi. Moez Elmostafa was asked if he wanted to change his statement. He refused. He was then bound over for trial. He was charged with being an accessory to a shop lifting. The prosecution brought in the shop lifter to have her testify that Moez Elmostafa had been her accomplice. She testified he was not. That Nifong attempted to intimidate Moez Elmostafa says loud and clear that Nifong did not want to indict anyone other than the three innocent men he had indicted.

The other issue is, Crystal actually identified another lacrosse player with 100% certainty as an assailant. Before that it was accepted that there were three assailants. That was what Crystal said in her police statement of April 6, 2006. Nifong did not seek an indictment against the 4th Lacrosse player Crystal identified with 100% certainty. How does that show that Nifong wanted to charge anyone other than Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty, and David Evans.

And I will say again, you are more incredibly stupid than I initially thought you were. You actually believe you can pull off this piece of bullshit.; February 20, 2018 at 4:07 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "once he had the information that the DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of the men he had indicted for and charged with rape he would have dropped the charges against them and sought out the men who had deposited their DNA on Crystal. He did not do that. Why did he not do that?..............................Because he believed them to be guilty of the those equally heinous crimes which he thought he could convict them on.; February 20, 2018 at 4:25 PM
Anonymous said...: More for Kenhyderal:

http://www.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/flatview?cuecard=59382:

This is something from NBC news reporting that Rade Seligmann and Colin Finnerty had been indicted for First Degree Forcible Rape, First Degree Sexual offense and Kidnapping.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5405885:

This is from NPR, a report that David Evans had been indicted for First Degree Rape as well as for sexual assault.

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/duke/ncduke41706ind.html

This is a link to the indictment against Reade Seligm Degree ann and Colin Finnerty for First Degree Rape

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/duke-rape-indictment

Another link to the indictment handed down against Reade Seligman and Colin Finnerty for first degree rape.

http://www.wistv.com/story/4905991/third-duke-lacrosse-player-indicted
and
http://www.wsfa.com/story/4906359/third-duke-lacrosse-player-indicted-on-rape-allegations

Two different TV stations in two different parts of the country report that David Evans had been indicted for first degree rape as well as for sexual assault and kidnapping.

So explain why you say Nifong did not have them indicted for rape.; February 20, 2018 at 4:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "once he had the information that the DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of the men he had indicted for and charged with rape he would have dropped the charges against them and sought out the men who had deposited their DNA on Crystal. He did not do that. Why did he not do that?..............................Because h coe believed them to be guilty of the those equally heinous crimes which he thought he could convict them on."

Read my last comment.

Again I dare you to explain, why do you claim Nifong did not have the three Lacrosse players indicted for rape.

With each response you post you show how more and more incredibly stupid you are.; February 20, 2018 at 4:43 PM
Anonymous said...: This one is for Sidney:

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2345&context=faculty_scholarship:

From an article in the Fordham Law Review:

"Nifong won the primary, which was held on May 2, 2006. He finished
with 45.2% of the vote, compared to 41.5% for Freda Black, and 13.3% for
Keith Bishop.80 The results showed that Nifong won his narrow victory—
883 votes81—on the basis of strong support from the black community,
where he commanded a plurality. Among African-American voters, Nifong
received 44%, compared to 25.2% for Freda Black and 30.8% for Keith
Bishop. Of other voters, Freda Black received the majority and held a small
lead over Nifong. The breakdown of non–African-American voters was
46.2% for Nifong, 50.6% for Freda Black, and 3.2% for Keith Bishop.82"

Sidney claims Nifong's pushing of the rape hoax would have cost him the election.

The only poll done before the election, admittedly done by Freda Black, showed Nifong with 20% of the voters and Freda Black with 38% of the voters.

After the Duke Rape Hoax became news, Nifong got more than 20% of the black vote, more than 20% of the white vote.

Sidney is as incredibly stupid if not more incredibly stupid than Kenny thinking he can bullshit his way around and through the truth.; February 20, 2018 at 4:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

again:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "once he had the information that the DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of the men he had indicted for and charged with rape he would have dropped the charges against them and sought out the men who had deposited their DNA on Crystal. He did not do that. Why did he not do that?..............................Because h coe believed them to be guilty of the those equally heinous crimes which he thought he could convict them on."

What factual evidence did Nifong have to justify his belief a crime had taken place.; February 20, 2018 at 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

In case you have not noticed you have changed your story.

Your first version: Nifong had the players indicted because he thought that would frighten them into identifying who had raped Crystal.

Your first version: Nifong believed he could convict them of sexual assault and kidnapping.

How could he have convicted them of sexual assault when the sexual assault Crystal had alleged in her police statement was a DNA depositing rape. I say again, the only DNA found on her person did not match the DNA of any of the men Nifong had indicted.; February 20, 2018 at 5:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

from http://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article24462769.html:

A quote form Nifong's address to a gathering at NCCU:

"DNA results can often be helpful, but, you know, I've been doing this for a long time, and for most of the years I've been doing this, we didn't have DNA. We had to deal with sexual assault cases the good old-fashioned way. Witnesses got on the stand and told what happened to them. ... It doesn't mean nothing happened. It just means nothing was left behind."

Nifong intended to prosecute for rape in spite of the lack of DNA evidence.; February 20, 2018 at 5:14 PM
guiowen said...: Don't worry, Kenny is very good at making up stories. The trouble is he doesn't realize they frequently clash with his previous stories.; February 20, 2018 at 5:18 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Don't worry; we long ago stopped expecting honorable behavior from you.; February 20, 2018 at 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:
t p
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122200590.html:

Nifong dropped the rape charges after Crystal said she could not recall actually being penetrated.

How could Nifong have dropped the rape charges about 8 months after the Grand Jury if he had not had rape charges in the first place.

More evidence of how you try to bullshit your way around and through facts which do not mesh with your guilt presuming racism.; February 20, 2018 at 5:22 PM
inconnu said...: Alors, Kenhyderal,
Est-ce que tu vas aider ton ami le gros Kilgo?; February 20, 2018 at 7:51 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Don't worry, Kenny is very good at making up stories. The trouble is he doesn't realize they frequently clash with his previous stories.".......................Give us an example.; February 20, 2018 at 8:34 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
On the one hand you say Nifong felt he could convict the three indicted player for the kidnapping, etc. On the other hand you say he thought he could get them to tell him who the real victimizers were.; February 20, 2018 at 10:12 PM
guiowen said...: Don't worry, Kenny,
We're all aware that you forget most of what you say because of context (whatever that means).; February 20, 2018 at 10:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Nifong knew all along there had been no rape and Mangum was lying prostitute.Sadly prosecutors railroad innocent people all the time but they just don't get punished for it.It wasn't a very good idea to pick on people who had the resources to fight back unlike most defendants.; February 21, 2018 at 1:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Duke Lacrosse is off to a great start this year with four victories in a row.They are currently ranked number 1 in the country.Let's hope for another national championship.; February 21, 2018 at 1:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

said...

Guiowen said: "Don't worry, Kenny is very good at making up stories. The trouble is he doesn't realize they frequently clash with his previous stories.".......................Give us an example."

You asked for it.

I challenged you to tell when Kilgo told you about his lacrosse player friend. You came up with three different verwionw. One, kilgo posted it on J4N, then left J4N and deletedhis posts. Two, Kilgo told you in an email which you lost, Three, Kilgo told you in both a post to J4N andin an email.

Then just yesterday. Nifong indicted men who, based on the forensic evidence, the lack of any DNA match, because he thought he could frighten them into revealing who had raped Crystal. Then you said, Nifong thought he could convict them of sexual assault and kidnapping without DNA evidence.

Which in turn brings up another dilemma in which you have gotten yourself. If Nifong thought he could convict them of certain crimes without DNA evidence, why did Nifong retain DNA security to look for DNA evidence?

And, I remind you, you have claimed Nifong did not indict the Lacrosse defendants for rape, in the face of factual evidence that he did. Maybe that explains why you ineffectively try to bullshit your way around and through factual evidence which does not mesh with your racist guilt presumption.; February 21, 2018 at 2:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

More abut the above mentioned dilemma in which you have gotten yourself.

Nifong did get DNA evidence, that the male DNA did not match the DNA of the men he wanted to prosecute. Did he look for the men who had left their DNA on Crystal? No he did not. He concealed the evidence.

Does that say he was looking for the perpetrators of the alleged rape. Or does that say he wanted to prosecute members of the Lacrosse team for the alleged crime?

I believe the latter.; February 21, 2018 at 4:23 AM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal let"s sum it up.

First you say, "He(Nifong) decided to charge the ones Crystal identified with the crime of kidnapping and sexual assault. His hope was that they would, out of fear, identify those involved in the rape."

Then you said, "Dr. Anonymous said: "once he had the information that the DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of the men he had indicted for and charged with rape he would have dropped the charges against them and sought out the men who had deposited their DNA on Crystal. He did not do that. Why did he not do that?..............................Because he believed them to be guilty of the those equally heinous crimes which he thought he could convict them on(without DNA evidence)."

The sexual assault, for which Nifong wanted to prosecute the Lacrosse defendants was described in the probable cause motion as a DNA depositing rape. Crystal herself descried the sexual assault for which Nifong wanted to prosecute the defendants as a DNA depositing rape.

Nifong hired DNA Security to find Male DNA on the rape kit materials. DNA Security did find male DNA on Crystal's rape kit, male DNA which did not match the DNA of the men he had indicted for not just sexual assault and kidnapping but primarily for first degree forcible rape-that was the first charge listed on the indictments.

Nifong did not inform the defendants of that result, which he was required to do under NC law, He did not try to identify the men who had left their DNA.

It is obvious that Nifong was not seeking justice,not seeking the truth. Nifong was seeking convictions of the defendants. How is that consistent with your previous statement that a prosecutor should seek the truth, not convictions.; February 21, 2018 at 4:45 AM
Anonymous said...: W

h

e

r

e'

s

S

i

d

n

e

y

?; February 21, 2018 at 6:32 AM
A Lawyer said...: don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references.

I doubt that her friends Milton Walker and Reginald Daye have a favorable opinion of her.still; February 21, 2018 at 7:23 AM
A Lawyer said...: Sorry for the typo; that should have been "still have a favorable opinion of her."; February 21, 2018 at 7:24 AM
Anonymous said...: How about it, Kennuy.

Was Nifong really looking for the perpetrators of the alleged rape or looking to prosecute members of the Lacrosse team, just to advance his political agenda.

He DID have them all charged with first degree forcible rape.

And, again, when is it acceptable legal procedure to indict people for crimes to intimidate then into fingering others?

I suggest you view the video of Marsha Goodenow in the Nifong ethics trial in which she addresses Nifong's threat to prosecute members of the Lacrosse team for aiding and abetting if they did not come forth, and it is clear from Nifong's actions regarding Moez Elmostafa and Reade Seligmann's alibi evidence that Nifong wanted incriminating testimony from them. Such testimony would have been tainted, one could not know whether or not the witness was testifying truthfully or was testifying to avoid a criminal charge. The testimony would have been in no way credible.

If that was what Nifong was doing, that in and of itself should have gotten him disbarred.; February 21, 2018 at 7:36 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Anonymous at 2:04 : The three examples you gave are all cases where my statements are mutually true and not exclusively contradictory. As to example four, the initial charges, after interviewing Crystal, former DA Nifong withdrew the forcible rape indictment but proceeded on with sexual assault. Like all Duke Lacrosse apologists you desperately seize on whatever you can and quickly proclaim a "gotcha" moment.; February 21, 2018 at 9:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal,
Could you please stop whining?; February 21, 2018 at 10:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"@ Anonymous at 2:04 : The three examples you gave are all cases where my statements are mutually true and not exclusively contradictory."

No they are not. They are three different responses to three different challenges to you to tell us when Kilgo supposedly told you about his Lacrosse player friend.

"As to example four, the initial charges, after interviewing Crystal, former DA Nifong withdrew the forcible rape indictment but proceeded on with sexual assault."

Like it or not you ARE telling another version of a story. Your original version was that Nifong had the Lacrosse players indicted only for sexual assault and kidnapping. That first version said that Nifong thought the lacrosse defendants would, out of fear, reveal who had perpetrated the rape. In your second version you said that Nifong thought he could convict them on charges of sexual assault and kidnapping. Now answer this question, how could Nifong have withdrawn the rape charges if, as you have claimed in two versions, that he had not filed rape charges? And Nifong intended to prosecute innocent Lacrosse defendants for rape regardless of whether or not he had DNA evidence, as he did admit at the NCCU conference.

So far as Nifong interviewing Crystal, it is a matter of public record that no one from Nifong's office directly interviewed Crystal until December of 2006, almost 9 months after she had alleged the rape. And it was Linwood Wilson who interviewed her, not Nifong. It was not a case of what your mentor Sidney claimed, that after investigating the case, decent honorable Nifong graciously realized he did not have a case for rape. Nifong was caught with his pants down and tried to cover his butt. T.here was nothing at all gracious about that.

"Like all Duke Lacrosse apologists you desperately seize on whatever you can and quickly proclaim a "gotcha" moment"

When you call me a Duke Lacrosse apologist you honor me. I defend men falsely accused of a crime which never happened. You, on the other hand are an apologist for a convicted criminal/false rape accuser/victimizer/second time convicted criminal/convicted murderess.

Gotcha gotcha gotcha gotcha gotcha gotcha again.; February 21, 2018 at 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Answer the question. When is it ever proper legal procedure to threaten someone with criminal charges to intimidate them into fingering someone?; February 21, 2018 at 10:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal, it is accepted legal procedure to offer leniency to someone who will turn state's evidence and testify against another criminal.

It is not accepted procedure when no crime has happened to indict and charge someone in the hope that the indicted individual will finger someone else.; February 21, 2018 at 10:42 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "When is it ever proper legal procedure to threaten someone with criminal charges to intimidate them into fingering someone?".......................Is it not a warning that you can be charged with aiding and abetting? DA Nifong did that. Special Prosecutor Mueller has done that.; February 21, 2018 at 1:32 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "Like it or not you ARE telling another version of a story"...............Re-read my words that you just quoted and apply them to this bogus charge. There is but one version and that is called the truth as I know it.; February 21, 2018 at 1:35 PM
Anonymous said...: kenhyderal's latest lame post:

Anonymous said: "When is it ever proper legal procedure to threaten someone with criminal charges to intimidate them into fingering someone?".......................Is it not a warning that you can be charged with aiding and abetting?"

Not when the prosecutor was doing it to suborn perjured testimony like Nifong was trying to do in the Duke Rape hoax

"DA Nifong did that."

Again, Nifong was trying to suborn perjured testimony. He wanted Lacrosse players to testify that other team members had raped Crystal. It has been proven conclusively that Crystal never told the truth when she alleged she had been raped.

"Special Prosecutor Mueller has done that."

If he did, what was the context. First he would have to prove there was a crime which someone had abetted. Everyone, except a certain pair of guilt presuming racists, knows there was no crime at the Lacrosse party house for anyone to aid and abet.; February 21, 2018 at 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal later latest lamest:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "Like it or not you ARE telling another version of a story"...............Re-read my words that you just quoted and apply them to this bogus charge."

Why should I since you can not comprehend what you said, all versions of what you have said.

"There is but one version and that is called the truth as I know it."

So how come you are incapable of recognizing the truth,that Crystal was not raped. Why are you yourself are incapable of telling the truth.; February 21, 2018 at 1:44 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Lawyer said...
don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references.

I doubt that her friends Milton Walker and Reginald Daye have a favorable opinion of her.still

February 21, 2018 at 7:23 AM

Hey, A Lawyer.

Milton Walker and Reginald Daye were physically abusive of Ms. Mangum... so I do not find it surprising that they would not have favorable opinions of Mangum. Just like I would not find it surprising if family and close friends of Harvey Weinstein did not have favorable opinions of his accusers.; February 21, 2018 at 2:36 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
This one is for Sidney:

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2345&context=faculty_scholarship:

From an article in the Fordham Law Review:

"Nifong won the primary, which was held on May 2, 2006. He finished
with 45.2% of the vote, compared to 41.5% for Freda Black, and 13.3% for
Keith Bishop.80 The results showed that Nifong won his narrow victory—
883 votes81—on the basis of strong support from the black community,
where he commanded a plurality. Among African-American voters, Nifong
received 44%, compared to 25.2% for Freda Black and 30.8% for Keith
Bishop. Of other voters, Freda Black received the majority and held a small
lead over Nifong. The breakdown of non–African-American voters was
46.2% for Nifong, 50.6% for Freda Black, and 3.2% for Keith Bishop.82"

Sidney claims Nifong's pushing of the rape hoax would have cost him the election.

The only poll done before the election, admittedly done by Freda Black, showed Nifong with 20% of the voters and Freda Black with 38% of the voters.

After the Duke Rape Hoax became news, Nifong got more than 20% of the black vote, more than 20% of the white vote.

Sidney is as incredibly stupid if not more incredibly stupid than Kenny thinking he can bullshit his way around and through the truth.

February 20, 2018 at 4:51 PM

Thanks for the link. I will have to follow up on it. Statistics are one thing, but their interpretation is something altogether different. Polls can be very subjective and biased. I will have to review the article and then make a determination. But I am not convinced that pursuing the Duke Lacrosse case was to his political advantage... actually I believe that it was to his detriment.; February 21, 2018 at 2:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Sid.; February 21, 2018 at 3:40 PM
kenhyderal said...: Just a reminder to Dr. Harr and A Lawyer, this quote, by Anonymous, "don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references"................... is plagiarized from a post made by me. This poster frequently posts this and other defences of Crystal directly cut and pasted from certain of my older posts on J4N. I rather doubt that the motive is to show agreement with my posts and support of Crystal but more likely to create mischief which, in a serious matter such as this, is quite deplorable. I hope it's the former and not the latter but if it is the former, I believe he should attribute the source.; February 21, 2018 at 3:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous A Lawyer said...
don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references.

I doubt that her friends Milton Walker and Reginald Daye have a favorable opinion of her.still

February 21, 2018 at 7:23 AM

Hey, A Lawyer.

Milton Walker and Reginald Daye were physically abusive of Ms. Mangum... so I do not find it surprising that they would not have favorable opinions of Mangum. Just like I would not find it surprising if family and close friends of Harvey Weinstein did not have favorable opinions of his accusers."

Sidney you say she was abused and suffered physical trauma. In pictures taken of her after the incidents show no evidence of the trauma you allege had been inflicted.; February 21, 2018 at 4:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
This one is for Sidney:

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2345&context=faculty_scholarship:

From an article in the Fordham Law Review:

"Nifong won the primary, which was held on May 2, 2006. He finished
with 45.2% of the vote, compared to 41.5% for Freda Black, and 13.3% for
Keith Bishop.80 The results showed that Nifong won his narrow victory—
883 votes81—on the basis of strong support from the black community,
where he commanded a plurality. Among African-American voters, Nifong
received 44%, compared to 25.2% for Freda Black and 30.8% for Keith
Bishop. Of other voters, Freda Black received the majority and held a small
lead over Nifong. The breakdown of non–African-American voters was
46.2% for Nifong, 50.6% for Freda Black, and 3.2% for Keith Bishop.82"

Sidney claims Nifong's pushing of the rape hoax would have cost him the election.

The only poll done before the election, admittedly done by Freda Black, showed Nifong with 20% of the voters and Freda Black with 38% of the voters.

After the Duke Rape Hoax became news, Nifong got more than 20% of the black vote, more than 20% of the white vote.

Sidney is as incredibly stupid if not more incredibly stupid than Kenny thinking he can bullshit his way around and through the truth.

February 20, 2018 at 4:51 PM

Thanks for the link. I will have to follow up on it. Statistics are one thing, but their interpretation is something altogether different. Polls can be very subjective and biased. I will have to review the article and then make a determination. But I am not convinced that pursuing the Duke Lacrosse case was to his political advantage... actually I believe that it was to his detriment."

So?

You believe Crystal had been raped at he Lacrosse party even though there is zero evidence she ever told the truth when she alleged she had been raped.

Casts a lot of doubt on your grasp on actual reality and convinces no one of your crediility.; February 21, 2018 at 4:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Just a reminder to Dr. Harr and A Lawyer, this quote, by Anonymous, "don't you find it strange that her friends, her professors, her classmates her teachers, her pastor, etc. all have a favorable opinion of her and have provided her with character references"................... is plagiarized from a post made by me. This poster frequently posts this and other defences of Crystal directly cut and pasted from certain of my older posts on J4N. I rather doubt that the motive is to show agreement with my posts and support of Crystal but more likely to create mischief which, in a serious matter such as this, is quite deplorable. I hope it's the former and not the latter but if it is the former, I believe he should attribute the source."

How do we know it isn't you posting anonymously?

The waffling you have demonstrated and denied creates doubt, serious doubt, much more than just reasonable doubt about your credibility and your grasp on reality.; February 21, 2018 at 4:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Ubes.; February 21, 2018 at 5:28 PM
The Great Kilgo said...: Kenhyderal, please help me! This fellow Shooto is holding me at io83y;kdnb; February 21, 2018 at 5:59 PM
Ubes said...: Kenhyderal, bitte! Du allein kannst deinen grossen Freund helfen! Komm schnell!; February 21, 2018 at 6:01 PM
kenhyderal said...: Verliere dich, Kumpel!; February 21, 2018 at 9:30 PM
Anonymous said...: When a crime that is being alleged is extremely unusual from a statistical standpoint there's reason to be very skeptical that it actually happened and being a prosecutor for three decades Nifong should have known this.Cases of black raping white women number in thousands every year.Cases of white men raping black women are practically nonexistent.; February 21, 2018 at 9:33 PM
Ubes said...: Wirst du dann nicht helfen?; February 21, 2018 at 10:16 PM
desconocido said...: Hola, Kenhyderal,
Ven pronto si quieres volver a ver a tu amigo el gordito antes de que pierda la cabeza. Ya no usa sino dos o tres palabras (ubes, spin). Solamente el te puede dar la informacion que necesitas.; February 21, 2018 at 10:52 PM
Anonymous said...: A thought for the day for Kenny:

Kenny was into chanting DENY DENY DENY at anyone he characterize as a Duke Lacrosse Apologist, which is how he characterizes any one who does not buy into his belief that Crystal had been raped.

Those whom he calls "Duke Lacrosse Apologists" can and have presented factual evidence that Crystal had not been raped.

When challenged to prove Crystal had been raped, Kenny's response was, he did not need proof because he trusted Crystal.

So who is into DENY DENY DENY?

The Duke Lacrosse Apologists who can support their position with facts, or Kenny who says he does not need facts to support his position.; February 22, 2018 at 5:02 AM
Anonymous said...: " Anonymous Anonymous said...

When a crime that is being alleged is extremely unusual from a statistical standpoint there's reason to be very skeptical that it actually happened and being a prosecutor for three decades Nifong should have known this.Cases of black raping white women number in thousands every year.Cases of white men raping black women are practically nonexistent.

February 21, 2018 at 9:33 PM"

The alleged rape of Crystal was more than "extremely unusual from a statistical standpoint".

It was a crime which never happened, as the facts of the case overwhelmingly show, facts towards which Kenny's attitude is DENY DENY DENY.; February 22, 2018 at 5:36 AM
kenhyderal said...: Facts are facts. Dr. A. has difficulty identifying what are facts and what are opinions. He calls his opinions facts. There are many whose interpretation of the facts makes them of the opinion that Crystal was raped at The Duke Lacrosse drunken spring break party.; February 22, 2018 at 10:20 AM
guiowen said...: Actually, apart from Sid and Kenny, and some nebulous figure called Kilgo, no one seems to agree with Kenny's interpretation of the facts.
Well, I guess 3 is many. Isn't that what5 Gamow's "1, 2, 3, Infinity" said?; February 22, 2018 at 12:03 PM
guiowen said...: Of course, it might help Kenny if Kilgo actually existed. But I don't see Kenny even trying to locate him.; February 22, 2018 at 12:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Facts are facts. Dr. A. has difficulty identifying what are facts and what are opinions. He calls his opinions facts. There are many whose interpretation of the facts makes them of the opinion that Crystal was raped at The Duke Lacrosse drunken spring break party."

BULLSHIT!!!

First off, you have conceded you have no facts to interpret.

Facts are facts.

The facts of the Duke Rape Hoax:

When Kim Pittman/Roberts drove Crystal away from the party house, she called 911, not to report a rape but that she and her girlfriend had been called n---er. She drove Crystal to a grocery store parking lot to have a security guard forcibly remove Crystal from her car. After tha a police officer was called to remove Crystal and he detrmined Crystalwas drunk. He took her to the Durham Access Center for involuntary committment. There a nurse asked her if she had been raped and Crystal said yes.

Crystal was taken to the DUMC ER where she was examined and the only finding was diffuse vaginal edema. A SANE in training was involved and she apparently the source of the information that there were injuries consistent with rape. A SANE is supposed to document the presence of specific injuries and then leave it up to the legal system to determine if a rape had occurred. Levicy's statement is not factual evidence of anything.

The probable cause affidavit and Crystal's statement to the police alleged a DNA depositing gang rape.

The SBI testing of the rape kit revealed no evidence of semen, blood or saliva on the rape kit materials. When DNA Security tested the rape kit materials it found Male DNA on the materials which did not match the DNA of any one who had been identified at the party.

All those FACTS add up to is, Crystal had not been raped at the party.

Kenny notes that the examining physician noted fluid in Crystal's genital tract which she thought was semen. The examining physician did not do a wet mount to document the presence of motile sperm, which would have not only confirmed that it was semen but also that the deposition fell within a time frame during which the Lacrosse party had occurred. The failure to find alkaline phosphatase on the rape kit materials says, if it was semen, it had not been deposited at the party.

Kenny also notes that the Male DNA did not match the DNA of any one of Crystal's known sex partners, and takes that as factual evidence that there were unidentified party attendees who had raped Crystal. The dDNA would not be evidence of mystery rapists unless it could be established it had been deposited at the party, and the real facts, which are not open to interpretation say that the DNA was not deposited at the party.

Then Kenny cries Kilgo and his unidentified Lacrosse player friend. Kenny, I repeat, has given three different accounts of how he learned from Kilgo of the anonymous lacrosse player which means that Kenny can not document that Kilgo ever told him that. Even if Kilgo had told him that, in the nearly 12 years since then said anonymous Lacrosse player has yet to emerge. The entire Lacrosse team said no rape had happened.

The only people who might believe Crystal had been raped number 4, Kenny, Sidney, Nifong and William Cohan. None of those 4 have ever done any serious investigation of the situation.

Kenny, guilt presuming racism, of which you are a practitioner, is not just a differing opinion.; February 22, 2018 at 12:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny:

"There are many whose interpretation of the facts makes them of the opinion that Crystal was raped at The Duke Lacrosse drunken spring break party."

Who?

Sidney's Committee for Justice for Nifong displays a lot of pictures. Since the Duke Rape Hoax became news, no one except Sidney Kenny Nifong and William Cohan have expressed support for Crystal, and that does not qualify as many. Former supporters like Race baiter Al and Race baiter Jesse and the New Black Panther party, if it is still around, Vincent Clarke, the pot bangers, the Gangsters of 88 have been notoriously silent.

That does not bespeak of wide spread belief in Crystal's story.

Self delusion is all Kenny can come up with.

I remind Kenny, when he was challenged to prove Crystal had been raped, he replied he did not need proof because he believed her. Does that add up to any factual evidence Crystal had been raped?

Kenny has said he believes Kilgo because what Kilgo was in line with what Crystal alleged. That means nothing other than, again, Kenny has no facts about the case which to opine about.; February 22, 2018 at 12:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey, A Lawyer.

Milton Walker and Reginald Daye were physically abusive of Ms. Mangum... so I do not find it surprising that they would not have favorable opinions of Mangum. Just like I would not find it surprising if family and close friends of Harvey Weinstein did not have favorable opinions of his accusers.

Sid ... Crystal was asked on the stand if Daye had ever abused her, and she said no. Why are you calling her a liar? She denied, repeatedly, that Daye was ever abusive. Are you calling Crystal a liar?; February 22, 2018 at 12:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: Of course, it might help Kenny if Kilgo actually existed."..............Both you and the person with the google account "Kilgo" posted contemporaneously.; February 22, 2018 at 1:18 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. A. said: "the real facts, which are not open to interpretation say that the DNA was not deposited at the party".........................Your opinion, Dr A also said: " Kenny, I repeat, has given three different accounts of how he learned from Kilgo of the anonymous lacrosse player"...................... All of the accounts are true and none of them are contradictory; February 22, 2018 at 1:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. A. said: "the real facts, which are not open to interpretation say that the DNA was not deposited at the party".........................Your opinion,"

My opinion, yes, but supported by the facts, no blood, semen, saliva on the rape kit.

"'Dr A also said: " Kenny, I repeat, has given three different accounts of how he learned from Kilgo of the anonymous lacrosse player/...................... All of the accounts are true and none of them are contradictory "

none of them are true and they are all contradictory.; February 22, 2018 at 1:53 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
So are you saying I don't exist any more than your friend Kilgo?; February 22, 2018 at 1:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Facts are facts. Dr. A. has difficulty identifying what are facts and what are opinions. He calls his opinions facts. There are many whose interpretation of the facts makes them of the opinion that Crystal was raped at The Duke Lacrosse drunken spring break party.

What is your definition of "many" -- 3?; February 22, 2018 at 2:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

The thing about kilgo is he or what ever kilgo was, kilgo never shed he knew anything about the Duke Rape hoax. Whenever who or what ever kilgo was posting he/she/it would brag he/she/it knew more about the incident than anyone. I did challenge him to document he knew anything. The best reply he/she/it could come up with is, since he/she/it lived in Durham he/she/it knew more about the weather in Durham than someone in New York.

You have no facts about which to opine.; February 22, 2018 at 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

You consider William Cohan's book the definitive account of the Lacrosse incident.

Cohan admitted in his book he did not provide any factual evidence to support the allegations he made. I have read Until Proven Innocent, It's Not About the Turth and Rush to Injustice, and all three books include documentation and references. Cohan said in his book is that the documentation is on line and is easily accessed.

Have you ever looked for that documentation. If you have found it, why have you not posted any links to it?

You do not comprehend what factual means, and that is a Fact.; February 22, 2018 at 3:19 PM
kenhyderal said...: Other than Dr. Harr and myself, who actually know Crystal, Kilgo received information from someone present at the Party. Unless there are friends or family of attendees at the Party here, the rest of you on this blog are all relying on a meta-narrative disseminated by the Duke Lacrosse Defence and the organized and craftily promoted Duke Lacrosse Apologists, using the tried and often successful, albeit despicable, strategy of discrediting female victims of sexual violence.; February 22, 2018 at 3:29 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: "What is your definition of "many"...................... A plurality of African Americans similar to those who voted for former DA Nifong. People who are ever so familiar with a justice system that rarely delivers justice for them.; February 22, 2018 at 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: In other words, you're not personally aware of "many" who believe that Crystal was raped, so you create a bogus "plurality".

Good on ya....; February 22, 2018 at 3:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal'a latest:

"Other than Dr. Harr and myself, who actually know Crystal, Kilgo received information from someone present at the Party."

Kilgo claimed he received information from someone at the party. What factual evidence supports that claim? You have offered none. When challenged to prove Crystal had been raped, your response was, you needed no proof because you trust Crystal. You have said you believe Kilgo because it was consistent with what Crystal told you. That is nothing but uncorroborated speculation and guilt presuming racism.

These are FACTS: the Probable cause affidavit described a DNA depositing rape; Crystal's police statement described a DNA depositing rape; the only DNA found on Crystal's rape kit did not match the DNA of any man identified as being at the Lacrosse party. And you have offered no factual evidence that there were unidentified party attendees, no factual evidence that the DNA found on Crystal had been deposited on her at the party.

"Unless there are friends or family of attendees at the Party here, the rest of you on this blog are all relying on a meta-narrative disseminated by the Duke Lacrosse Defence and the organized and craftily promoted Duke Lacrosse Apologists, using the tried and often successful, albeit despicable, strategy of discrediting female victims of sexual violence."

Againm Kenny, the only metanarrative promulgated in the Duke Rape Hoax was the metanarrative that Caucasian men lust after women like Crystal, and believe they can rape women like Crystal with impunity. What is despicable in this case is your and Sidney's attempts to discredit innocent falsely accused men just to benefit a convicted criminal/false rape accuser/second time convicted criminal/convicted murderess, and your de facto Scottsboro attitude that the innocent falsely accused defendants should have been summarily convicted and incarcerated solely on the uncorroborated allegations offered by Crystal and Nifong.

YOU HAVE OFFERED NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE CRYSTAL EVER TOLD THE TRUTH WHEN SHE ALLEGED SHE HAD BEEN RAPED.; February 22, 2018 at 3:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Anonymous said: "What is your definition of "many"...................... A plurality of African Americans similar to those who voted for former DA Nifong. People who are ever so familiar with a justice system that rarely delivers justice for them."

The people who voted for Nifong did so almost 12 years ago. In the nearly 12 years since Crystal falsely accused the Lacrosse players of raping her, none of the people who first bought into her metanarrative have vanished. No one, except you, Nifong, Sidney and William Cohan support Crystal. Since the documentary Fantastic Lies, no one has come forward to express support for Crystal except you and Sidney and Cohan, which was as unusual as Joseph Goebbels, Hermann Göring Heinrich Himmler supporting Adilf Hitler in the late 1920's-1930s.

No one is buying into the metanarrative that Crystal had been raped.; February 22, 2018 at 3:59 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. A. Said: Cohan admitted in his book he did not provide any factual evidence to support the allegations he made".................That's not what he said.; February 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr.A. said: ": Since the documentary Fantastic Lies, no one has come forward to express support for Crystal except you and Sidney and Cohan, which was as unusual as Joseph Goebbels, Hermann Göring Heinrich Himmler supporting Adilf Hitler in the late 1920's-1930s................................................ Huh? Unusual that no one has come forward to support Crystal? What was unusual that Goebbels, Göring and Himmler supported Hitler in the 1920's to the 1930's? As usual you often don't make much sense.; February 22, 2018 at 4:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. A. Said: Cohan admitted in his book he did not provide any factual evidence to support the allegations he made".................That's not what he said."

Yes he did. He said the documentation was accessible on line. Have you found any?

One thing has been documented. Nifong claimed that AG Cooper's investigators felt they had been sandbagged when AG Cooper stated his conclusion that the Lacrosse players were innocent. The investigators were James Coman and Mary Winstead.

from https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/william-l-anderson/innocent-boys-victimized-for-their-race/:

The ultimate source is Joe Neff who writes for the News and Observer:

Cohan quoting Nifong, "'I have to believe, based on my knowledge of Jim Coman and Mary Winstead, that they were every bit as sandbagged by what happened as I was,' Nifong said."

Cohan never talked to either Mary Winstead and James Coman.

Joe Neff did: "Coman said all the physical evidence pointed to innocence – DNA tests; cellphone records of the players and Mangum; photographs and videos; and receipts from a gas station, restaurants and debit cards. One player, whom Coman dubbed “Ansel Adams,” photographed and videoed much of the evening.

'I was just adamant,” Coman said. “She lied, she made up a story, and damn it, we’ve got to do the right and ethical thing.'”

So go ahead and promulgate your metanarrative that Cohan wrote a definitive accout of the Duke Rape Hoax. He did not.; February 22, 2018 at 4:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr.A. said: ": Since the documentary Fantastic Lies, no one has come forward to express support for Crystal except you and Sidney and Cohan, which was as unusual as Joseph Goebbels, Hermann Göring Heinrich Himmler supporting Adilf Hitler in the late 1920's-1930s................................................ Huh? Unusual that no one has come forward to support Crystal? What was unusual that Goebbels, Göring and Himmler supported Hitler in the 1920's to the 1930's? As usual you often don't make much sense. "

No, you are incapable of comprehending, probably prevented from comprehending by your guilt presuming racism and your fascination with imagining Crystal had been gang raped.; February 22, 2018 at 4:20 PM
guiowen said...: Cohan said the documentation was easily accessible online. Unfortunately he did not say exactly where any of it could be found. He certainly did not have footnotes, end-notes, etc. to document his many claims.; February 22, 2018 at 5:49 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Can you give us some of Cohan's documentation? Where does he tell us to look for it?; February 22, 2018 at 5:51 PM
guiowen said...: This sort of reminds me of the time when good old Kenny used the word quasi-probable and assured us that we could find the word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.; February 22, 2018 at 6:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Just what factual evidence that Crystal actually was the victim of a DNA depositing rape at the Lacrosse party, in view of the facts that the SBI crime lab found no semen, blood or saliva on the rape kit materials, the only male DNA found on the rape kit materials did not match the DNA of any male identified as a party attendee, and what Kilgo told you is not evidence of unidentified party attendees, especially as you can provide zero evidence that said Lacrosse friend of kilgo even exists or, for that matter, that kilgo ever told you such a thing.

You can provide no factual evidence. All you can do is continue the metanarative that Caucasian males lust after black women and believe they can rape black women with impunity and DENY DENY DENY.; February 22, 2018 at 6:25 PM
kenhyderal said...: They found unidentified DNA extracted from sperm (Fact) Semen is the vehicle for sperm (Fact). The DNA was not explained by her given consensual sex history. (Fact) Using your standards; no one has proven Crystal lied about her consensual sexual history (Fact) Your last statement is untrue and smacks of racism. I have never said, nor do I believe such a thing. You shoot out garbage like that as fact; February 22, 2018 at 8:33 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "This sort of reminds me of the time when good old Kenny used the word quasi-probable and assured us that we could find the word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary."................................That assurance still stands.; February 22, 2018 at 8:47 PM
guiowen said...: The best good old Kenny could come up with was some dictionary where "quasi-probable" appeared, with no definition, as related to "probable".
It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Kenny still doesn't know what the word means.; February 22, 2018 at 10:20 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
Here's (part of) the conversation we had back in March 2015. Enjoy it!

Blogger guiowen said...

Kenny,
I did indeed look it up. Here's what I found:

Sorry, no results for “quasi-probable” in the Collins American English Dictionary.

Are you trying to pull another fast one on us?

March 18, 2015 at 9:51 AM
Blogger guiowen said...

Here's what I got from Merriam- Webster:

"The word you've entered was not found. Please try your search again. "

Kenny, are you sure you can read?

March 18, 2015 at 10:00 AM
Blogger kenhyderal said...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quasi-probable

March 18, 2015 at 10:18 AM
Blogger guiowen said...

But Kenny, you said Collins or Merriam-Webster!

March 18, 2015 at 10:25 AM
Anonymous Fake Kenhyderal said...

Kenny -- That's thedefinition for the word "probable" (although "quasi-probable" is listed as a related term).

I've only seen the term "quasi-probable" used to define mathematical errors in civil engineering.
YMMV

March 18, 2015 at 10:27 AM
Blogger guiowen said...

Fake Kenny,
You're right. Still, we must praise the "real" Kenny for actually finding a dictionary that says the word exists. I bet he had to look very hard.
Congratulations, "real" Kenny! You're a winner!

March 18, 2015 at 10:35 AM
Anonymous Math is fun said...

necessarily probable ≠ quasi-probable

March 18, 2015 at 10:40 AM
Anonymous Fake guiowen said...

Hey, Kenhyderal, I just found a definition for "quasi-probable error":

"The square of the average of the square root of the absolute value of the true error."

So that explains it all!
Shame on you, Guiowen, and shame on you, Fake Kenhyderal, for suggesting that Kenny didn't know what he was talking about! What could be clearer than this?

March 18, 2015 at 11:30 AM
Blogger guiowen said...

Fake Guiowen, my alter ego,
How could you betray me like this? Now everybody will see that Kenny is smarter than anyone on this blog!

March 18, 2015 at 11:43 AM
Anonymous Fake Kenhyderal said...

Hey Fake G ---

That's similar to the mathematical civil engineering usage I referred to earlier....Although I'm sure that it has it's applications in other engineering fields as well -- telecommunications, maybe?

March 18, 2015 at 11:43 AM
Anonymous Fake Kenhyderal said...

I think "Math is fun" is correct -- "necessarily probable" (most likely Kenny was attempting to use this as a legal term) IS NOT the same as "quasi-probable" (a mathematical term).

Kenny doesn't know what he's talking about.

March 18, 2015 at 11:48 AM; February 22, 2018 at 10:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"They found unidentified DNA extracted from sperm (Fact)"

What is not fact is that said DNA from sperm had been deposited on her person at the Lacrosse party, as she had alleged in her statement to the police. What the SBI crime lab found, no evidence of semen, blood or saliva on her rape kit materials(which is fact) says that the DNA had not been deposited on her at the Lacrosse party.

"Semen is the vehicle for sperm (Fact)."

Again, it is not fact that the semen which was the vehicle for the sperm was put on her person at the party, as she had alleged in her statement to the police.

"The DNA was not explained by her given consensual sex history. (Fact)"

It was not fact that the DNA had been deposited on Crystal's person at the Lacrosse party, as she had alleged in her police statement.

"Using your standards; no one has proven Crystal lied about her consensual sexual history (Fact)".

Irrelevant as the issue is not whether or not Crystal had "lied about her consensual sexual history", but whether or not Crystal had told the truth when she alleged, in her statement to the police, she had been the victim of a semen depositing rape at the party. No one had to prove Crystal lied about anything to establish innocence. The PROSECUTION had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning the PROSECUTION had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that the DNA found on Crystal had been deposited on her at the party as she had alleged in her statement to the police, that the PROSECUTION HAD TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT CRYSTAL HAD TOLD THE TRUTH!!! And as there is zero factual evidence that the DNA found on Crystal was deposited on her at the Lacrosse party, as she had alleged in her statement to the police, there is zero evidence Crystal ever told the truth.

"Your last statement is untrue and smacks of racism."

How about your statement that you need no proof that Crystal had been raped because you believe her. I again refer to the Scottsboro boys case, in which the attitude of the persecutors of the Scottsboro boys was, believe the accusers, and ignore the lack of zero evidence of any crime. Your attitude is, black on white racism, believe the accused were guilty because the accuser was a black woman.

"I have never said, nor do I believe such a thing."

What you HAVE said on multiple occasions is, that Crystal was the victim of a metanarrative put out by the Lacrosse defendants and their counsel to discredit her. In spite of what you did say, there is and never was any factual evidence that any such metanarrative was ever put out. The only metanarrative ever put out in the Duke Rape Hoax was, Caucasian men lust after black women and believe they can rape black women with impunit.

"You shoot out garbage like that as fact"

No, you DENY DENY DENY factual evidence which does not mesh with your racist guilt presumption.; February 23, 2018 at 1:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhydral:

"Guiowen said: 'This sort of reminds me of the time when good old Kenny used the word quasi-probable and assured us that we could find the word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.'................................That assurance still stands."

From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quasi-probable:

"THE WORD YOU'VE ENTERED ISN'T IN THE DICTIONAEY(emohasis added). Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above"

More of Kenny resorting to DENY DENY DENY.; February 23, 2018 at 1:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Sorry for the typo. I meant to type DICTIONARY; February 23, 2018 at 1:30 AM
Anonymous said...: I also meant to type emphasis, not emohasis.; February 23, 2018 at 1:31 AM
Anonymous said...: In a previous comment I said, "lack of zero evidence of any crime"

I should have said lack of evidence.

I again apologize for he typo.; February 23, 2018 at 1:35 AM
Anonymous said...: For Kenhyderal:

Please state, if you can without resorting to any DENY DENY DENY bullshit, what established that the DNA found on Crystal had been deposited at the Lacrosse party.

The only way it could be established would have been that the men who had left their DNA had been identified and then it had to be established they had been at the party.

Nifong, after he received the report of DNA Security, that the only male DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of the men he wanted to prosecute, concealed the evidence. He made no attempt to identify who had left their DNA on Crystal and made no attempt to establish whether or not they had been at the party. How does that reveal that Nifong believed the DNA had come from rapists who had been at the party?

This gets back to your claim that Nifong did not have the Lacrosse defendants indicted for rape, and it has been established as fact that Nifong DID have the three defendants indicted for first degree forcible rape.; February 23, 2018 at 3:23 AM
FakeKenhyderal said...: "They found unidentified DNA extracted from sperm (Fact) Semen is the vehicle for sperm (Fact). The DNA was not explained by her given consensual sex history. (Fact) Using your standards; no one has proven Crystal lied about her consensual sexual history (Fact) "

The DNA did not match anyone from the lacrosse party that was tested (Fact)
The DNA did not match the 3 accused lacrosse players (Fact)
Using your standards, no one has proven that Crystal told the truth about being raped by the 3 accused lacrosse players (Fact); February 23, 2018 at 8:29 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny's arguments as to "what happened" are worth about as much as his recent assurance that we can find the word "quasi-probable" in Merriam-Webster's dictionary.; February 23, 2018 at 8:41 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "He certainly did not have footnotes, end-notes, etc. to document his many claims"..................................Lets get back on topic. It's quite laughable to see you guys.gals get your shorts/panties in a knot as to whether I misused quasi-probable on a post 3 years ago and whether I believed wrongly that it was a word found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary or just a technical construct used only in Mathematics or Engineering. Can you document one claim, of what you call many claims made by Wm. Cohan in The Price of Silence, that needed to be footnoted.; February 23, 2018 at 1:42 PM
FakeKenhyderal said...: Well -- there's the claim that Duke settled for $60 million dollars, for one. The actual settlement amount has never been made public, and this figure was based off an (apparently faulty) IRS tax lien against Reade Seligmann.

If you going to make a claim like "Duke settled for $60 million dollars", you should have a footnoted source.; February 23, 2018 at 2:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Guiowen said: "He certainly did not have footnotes, end-notes, etc. to document his many claims"..................................Lets get back on topic. It's quite laughable to see you guys.gals get youbr shorts/panties in a knot as to whether I misused quasi-probable on a post 3 years ago and whether I believed wrongly that it was a word found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary or just a technical construct used only in Mathematics or Engineering."

Your quote from February 22, 2018 at 8:47 PM: "Guiowen said: "This sort of reminds me of the time when good old Kenny used the word quasi-probable and assured us that we could find the word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary."................................THAT ASSURANCE STILL STANDS(emphasis added this time)."

What I posted in response(typo corrected), February 23, 2018 at 1:29 AM: From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quasi-probable:

"THE WORD YOU'VE ENTERED ISN'T IN THE DICTIONARY(emphasis added). Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above"

"Can you document one claim, of what you call many claims made by Wm. Cohan in The Price of Silence, that needed to be footnoted."

Call this a willful error of commission and omission on the part of Cohan and I posted tnis earlier. Here it is again, from my comment of February 22, 2018 at 4:18 PM:

Cohan quoting Nifong, "'I have to believe, based on my knowledge of Jim Coman and Mary Winstead, that they were every bit as sandbagged by what happened as I was,' Nifong said."

I point out that cohan did not talk to either James Coman or Mary Winstead about this, did nothing to verify that this was how they actually felt about the AG's press conerence.

Joe Neff of the Herald Sun did talk to James Coman:

"Coman said all the physical evidence pointed to innocence – DNA tests; cellphone records of the players and Mangum; photographs and videos; and receipts from a gas station, restaurants and debit cards. One player, whom Coman dubbed “Ansel Adams,” photographed and videoed much of the evening.

'I was just adamant,” Coman said. “She lied, she made up a story, and damn it, we’ve got to do the right and ethical thing.'”

Coman presented Nifong's statement as if it was true. Did he verify that James Coman and Mary Winstead feel they had been sandbagged by AG Cooper.

If you do think Coman did verify, did document that AG Cooper's investigators felt they had been sandbagged, then I say again you are more incredibly stupid than I first believed.; February 23, 2018 at 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Can you document one claim, of what you call many claims made by Wm. Cohan in The Price of Silence, that needed to be footnoted."

This is from a review of The Price of Silence on Amazon, and the author of the review took the information from Cohan's book. Cohan himself admitted in his book that he did not provide any information to document the claims he made.

"The first issue I have with The Price of Silence is what I would label the "un" problem. Cohan's book is completely unsourced, and as a consequence it is unreliable. At the end of the book, where a reader would expect to find a detailed set of end notes identifying the sources for the innumerable quotes and factual claims in the book, Cohan instead gives us a brief "note on sources" where he informs us that he decided it would be "superfluous" to identify his specific sources, because "the vast majority of them are easily accessible to anyone online."; February 23, 2018 at 3:02 PM
guiowen said...: Good old Kenny!
He made a mistake (in a rather rude way) three years ago. He now doubles down on it ("That assurance still stands.") I imagine he believes that he can never be wrong. If he ever made a mistake -- why, it's taken out of context!; February 23, 2018 at 3:03 PM
guiowen said...: So, Kenny,
Have you figured out yet what quasi-probable means? Or shall I ask Fake Guiowen to explain it to you?; February 23, 2018 at 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney from Wednesday, September 1, 2010:

"As so-called “Ministers of Justice,” prosecutors should have their priority as the goal of justice before that of winning a case."

Sidney, explain how Nifong was placing priority on justice rather than winning a case when he had indicted three men who could not have perpetrated the alleged crime he was trying to prosecute.

I repeat: the Probable Cause affidavit described a rape in which the perpetrators deposited their DNA on the alleged victim, Crystal. Crystal, in her police statement described a DNA depositing rape. The only male DNA found on Crystal in the wake of her allegations did not match the DNA of the men Nifong wanted to prosecute. They could not have perpetrated the alleged crime.

You insist that Crystal was convicted of trumped up murder charges because she had accused the men of raping her. That is the relevance of this question to your farce of a blog.; February 23, 2018 at 5:35 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny, here is something else from 2015:

Blogger kenhyderal said...

Guiowen said: ""Quasi probable"? Hey, another meaningless term! Pretty good, Kenny! I salute you"".........Oops I forgot the hyphen. But anyway, look it up in Collins or Merriam-Webster

March 18, 2015 at 9:13 AM

As you can see, Kenny, you just felt so wise that you replied to my question by brushing it off. A reasonable man would at least have checked in either of those two dictionaries to make certain you weren't merely making a stupid comment. But I long ago stopped expecting reasonable behavior from you.; February 23, 2018 at 6:19 PM
kenhyderal said...: Fake KHA said: If you going to make a claim like "Duke settled for $60 million dollars", you should have a footnoted source.......................................................................... Well taking Wm. Cohan's advice about the availability of sources on-line I sought it out. In fairness, though, Wm. Cohan did point out that this was a speculation. However, he did consider this estimate be correct when he titled his book. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/irs-claims-duke-lacrosse-player-reade-seligmann-owes-millions-lawyer-bill-mistake-article-1.135177; February 23, 2018 at 9:33 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "As you can see, Kenny, you just felt so wise that you replied to my question by brushing it off. A reasonable man would at least have checked in either of those two dictionaries to make certain you weren't merely making a stupid comment. But I long ago stopped expecting reasonable behavior from you"......................Spare us the fake outrage. It's a perfectly acceptable construct adding the prefix quasi meaning almost but not quite to an adjective. It can easily be found in lists of such constructed words eg. http://www.whatdoesthatmean.com/dictionary/Q/quasi.html As you are aware both the prefix and the adjective I used can be found in any dictionary.; February 23, 2018 at 9:54 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
The fact remains you assured us (without even bothering to look) the word could be found in those dictionaries. Don't tell me it should have been there. Now just yesterday you insisted the word could be found there. An honorable person would have conceded that. But we long ago stopped expecting honorable behavior from you.; February 23, 2018 at 10:28 PM
guiowen said...: By the way, Kenny, we are all aware that you're the only person here who goes around talking about people's underwear.
But I guess that, as the author of the "Kenhyderal rule", you're exempt from it.; February 23, 2018 at 10:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Fake KHA said: If you going to make a claim like "Duke settled for $60 million dollars", you should have a footnoted source.......................................................................... Well taking Wm. Cohan's advice about the availability of sources on-line I sought it out. In fairness, though, Wm. Cohan did point out that this was a speculation. However, he did consider this estimate be correct when he titled his book. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/irs-claims-duke-lacrosse-player-reade-seligmann-owes-millions-lawyer-bill-mistake-article-1.135177"

Kenny, your mentor Sidney takes the story of the Lacrosse layers each receiving $20 as gospel truth. If Cohan really knew about what he was talking, he would not have considered that estimate to be correct.

If the IRS has a problem with a taxpayer, the IRS contacts the taxpayer directly. The claim that Reade Seligmann owed $6 million came from an accountant. The IRS would never have approached that situation by contacting a taxpayer's accountant.

I ask again, after Cohan quoted Nifong that AG investigators felt sandbagged after the AG expressed his belief that the Lacrosse players, as a matter of real world fact, not proclamation, were innocent, did Cohan contact the investigators and ask, was this true. Obviously he did not.; February 24, 2018 at 12:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Guiowen said: "As you can see, Kenny, you just felt so wise that you replied to my question by brushing it off. A reasonable man would at least have checked in either of those two dictionaries to make certain you weren't merely making a stupid comment. But I long ago stopped expecting reasonable behavior from you"......................Spare us the fake outrage. It's a perfectly acceptable construct adding the prefix quasi meaning almost but not quite to an adjective. It can easily be found in lists of such constructed words eg. http://www.whatdoesthatmean.com/dictionary/Q/quasi.html As you are aware both the prefix and the adjective I used can be found in any dictionary."

Kenny, your claim was that quasi-probable WAS a word in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Your claim was not that both quasi and probable were both found in the dictionary. I gave you a reference in which the Merriam Webster dictionary said it was not a word in the dictionary, albeit that the original post contained typos. You still insisted it was a word in the dictionary.

Have you not yet learned you can not bullshit your way out of your obvious errors?; February 24, 2018 at 12:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Ubes, there you go picking on Ken again. I think you need to take a day off from the internet.; February 24, 2018 at 4:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, the saying goes if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen; February 24, 2018 at 5:24 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "By the way, Kenny, we are all aware that you're the only person here who goes around talking about people's underwear"...........................Again, spare us the fake outrage. https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/get+knickers+in+a+knot; February 24, 2018 at 8:32 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny, we're not outraged. We long ago stopped expecting honorable behavior from you.; February 24, 2018 at 8:41 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Dr. Anonymous. Give it up. Many common usages of "quasi dash hyphen" adjectives are listed in Merriam-Webster but there are hundreds of thousands of other adjectives that quasi can be unambiguously prefixed to and clearly understood.; February 24, 2018 at 8:42 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
You still haven't told us what "quasi-probable" means.; February 24, 2018 at 8:46 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: " quoting President Truman: "Kenny, the saying goes if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen"..................................... That President also said: "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's Hell"; February 24, 2018 at 8:48 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Guiowen 8:46: see my 2-23-18 post 9:54 PM; February 24, 2018 at 8:50 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said : "We long ago stopped expecting honorable behavior from you".......................................................................... If you want to know what is really dishonorable behaviour check out the words of Former DA Nifong as outlined in a report in the Journal of Sports Law " Early in the investigation, Durham authorities accused the players of establishing a "wall of silence": "authorities vowed to crack the team's wall of solidarity. 'We're asking someone from the lacrosse team to step forward,' Durham police [Corporal] David Addison said."175 The national media picked up on the lack of cooperation theme before the end of March 2006, with a prediction that the wall would collapse when the going got tougher for the players:
Carol Costello, CNN Correspondent: The question, which [members of the Duke lacrosse team are involved?] So far team members have refused to answer questions. Unidentified Female: We want the members of the Duke lacrosse team to come clean.... Mike Nifong, District Attorney: My guess is that some of this stone wall of silence that we have seen may tend to crumble once charges begin to come out.176
District Attorney Nifong continued to criticize the team, both for not having the courage to stop an attack or the courage to come forward with information. 177 District Attorney Nifong urged the lacrosse players to have "the human decency to call up and say, 'What am I doing covering up for a bunch of hooligans He indicated that he hoped at least one of the players who was not involved
would be "as horrified by [the incident] as the rest of us are."1 79 "I'm disappointed that no one has been enough of a man to come forward."180; February 24, 2018 at 9:16 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
So what you're saying is that good old Mike Nifong is even worse than you?; February 24, 2018 at 9:22 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
You also seem to be saying that you can construct strange words even if you don't know the meaning -- because you're so smart?; February 24, 2018 at 9:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"@ Dr. Anonymous. Give it up. Many common usages of "quasi dash hyphen" adjectives are listed in Merriam-Webster but there are hundreds of thousands of other adjectives that quasi can be unambiguously prefixed to and clearly understood."

So how does that establish that quasi-probable is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary?
Ot doesn't. You yet again are trying to bullshit your way around an obvious error on your part. Your bullshit does not baffle anyone but you.; February 24, 2018 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"

Anonymous said: " quoting President Truman: "Kenny, the saying goes if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen"..................................... That President also said: "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's Hell"

So

In the matter of Truman, you have never told the truth. You pass off undocumented bullshit as truth.; February 24, 2018 at 9:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Guiowen said : "We long ago stopped expecting honorable behavior from you".......................................................................... If you want to know what is really dishonorable behaviour check out the words of Former DA Nifong as outlined in a report in the Journal of Sports Law " Early in the investigation, Durham authorities accused the players of establishing a "wall of silence": "authorities vowed to crack the team's wall of solidarity. 'We're asking someone from the lacrosse team to step forward,' Durham police [Corporal] David Addison said."175 The national media picked up on the lack of cooperation theme before the end of March 2006, with a prediction that the wall would collapse when the going got tougher for the players:
Carol Costello, CNN Correspondent: The question, which [members of the Duke lacrosse team are involved?] So far team members have refused to answer questions. Unidentified Female: We want the members of the Duke lacrosse team to come clean.... Mike Nifong, District Attorney: My guess is that some of this stone wall of silence that we have seen may tend to crumble once charges begin to come out.176
District Attorney Nifong continued to criticize the team, both for not having the courage to stop an attack or the courage to come forward with information. 177 District Attorney Nifong urged the lacrosse players to have "the human decency to call up and say, 'What am I doing covering up for a bunch of hooligans He indicated that he hoped at least one of the players who was not involved
would be "as horrified by [the incident] as the rest of us are."1 79 "I'm disappointed that no one has been enough of a man to come forward."180"

Unlike President Truman who you recently quoted, you try to purvey bullshit as truth. Read an honest, objective account of the Duke Rape Hoax like the meticulously documented Until Proven Innocent, which is not like Price of Silence, the author of which has admitted is thoroughly undocumented.

All this is part of the metanarrative, promulgated by apologists for convicted criminal/false rape accuser/victimizer Crystal Mangum. Those statements were discredited almost 11 years ago when AG Cooper presented his findings to the public. If any of the authors still believe that Lacrosse players raped Crystal, where are they now. Race baiter Al does not support her any more. Race Baiter Jesse no longer supports her. Vincent Clarke has not spoken up for her in years. The New Black Panther party has not spoken up for her in years. William Barber, head of the NC NAACP has not spoken up for her in years.

None of that explains the following: according to the Probable Cause affidavit and according to Crystal's statement to the police, what happened was a rape in which multiple assailants, members of the Lacrosse team had deposited DNA on her. SBI testing of the rape kit revealed no evidence of blood, semen or saliva. DNA Security testing of the rape kit materials found Male DNA which did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team. That adds up to zero evidence that the crime ever happened. The most obvious explanation of why no one on the Lacrosse team ever came forth about the alleged crime is that the alleged crime never happened.

So explain exactly what is honorable about guilt presuming gangs trying to railroad innocent men for a crime which never happened. I remind you, you yourself have conceded that you can provide no evidence of a crime, that you believe the crime happened because you trust Crystal, in other words, because Crystal said so. In the case of the Scottsboro boys, they were accused simply because the accusers said they were guilty.

So explain why you are not a guilt presuming racist, you clone of a Scottsboro Boys persecutor.; February 24, 2018 at 9:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, Sidney, here is something for you:

Would either one of you have wanted to be treated like the Scottsboro boys? I think not.

So why do the two of you treat the Lacrosse defendants, who are innocent because it has been proven the rape Crystal alleged never happened(for Sidney's benefit it has never been proven Crystal ever told the truth) the way the Scottsboro boys were treated?; February 24, 2018 at 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"If you want to know what is really dishonorable behaviour check out the words of Former DA Nifong as outlined in a report in the Journal of Sports Law "

Long ago, the words of Former DA Nifong were demonstrated to be fabrications. What the evidence showed was that the alleged crime never happened.

What is honorable about a DA fabricating a case against demonstrably innocent men.

That you and Sidney claim they are not innocent is meaningless. You yourself have admitted you can provide no factual evidence of guilt. The best Sidney has come up with are the irrelevancies, no one ever proved Crystal lied(the DA had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she had told the truth), and AG Cooper never proved the Lacrosse players were innocent(yes he did-his report documented there was no evidence the crime ever happenec0.; February 24, 2018 at 10:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney:

Regarding your claim that Nifong did not conceal the DNA evidence:

from http://www.slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/accepting-a-pardon-from-trump-could-add-booster-rockets-to-state-prosecutions.html:

"Nifong has repeatedly claimed that he ultimately did nothing wrong because the defense eventually received the DNA results. North Carolina's discovery law, however, clearly required the results to be included in a report prepared last April, not handed over months later."

This has been explained to you years ago. Turning over thousands of pages of raw data 8 months or so after he got the report does not add up to Nifong complying with NC law regarding disclosure of exculpatory evidence.

The fact that the DNA did not match the DNA of any member or the Lacrosse team is what made it exculpatory.; February 24, 2018 at 10:44 AM
Anonymous said...: For Kenhyderal who claimed the lineup of April 4 2006 included pictures of 20 members of the Lacrosse team who did not attend the party.

from:https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir:102280/datastream/PDF/view

"On March 13, 2006, the men‘s Duke Lacrosse team decided to throw a party. Alcohol was
bought, the location was set at 610 North Buchanan Boulevard, the members of the team were notified, and to increase the excitement, they called for a stripper. Approximately forty men from the Duke Lacrosse team attended."; February 24, 2018 at 11:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

also from https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir:102280/datastream/PDF/view:

"On March 16th, lacrosse players cooperated when police conducted a search without warrant of the lacrosse house on 610 North Buchanan (Bernstein, 2006). The police revealed that they had found four laptop computers, five cameras, a bath mat, a bath rug, five broken artificial fingernails, a bottle of K-Y jelly, and cash (―911 calls lead,‖ 2006). All of these items were then taken into custody. Furthermore, the lacrosse players continued to cooperate when they were requested to submit DNA samples for testing. By complying with the testing, Duke Lacrossehoped to prove their innocence. Forty-six out of forty-seven members of the team made plans to go to the Duke University Medical Center."

Contrary to what you posted from Nifong, the Lacrosse team did not refuse to cooperate with the police. They knew they were innocent.; February 24, 2018 at 11:09 AM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
I can see that you're upset nobody confessed (to a crime that had not been committed) or fingered anyone else. It must also be horrible that people actually hired lawyers. Quite frankly, my interpretation is that good old Mike tried to railroad he players and, or a short while, he actually got some people to agree with him. Eventually, of course, most people (except you and a few others) realized there was no crime.
What I see is that Mike was not behaving honorably. The best I can say for you is that you're not as bad as good old Mike.; February 24, 2018 at 5:40 PM
guiowen said...: As for "quasi-probable", my interpretation is that you feel you're so smart that you can make up words and not even bother to look them up. At this point you have no doubt forgotten about all this, because of "context", so you keep on insisting that the word you made up means what you want it to mean, and that the Merriam-Webster and Collins dictionaries must have this word.
This is not dishonorable behavior; it's, rather, an illustration of your inbred pride.; February 24, 2018 at 5:44 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
We're all aware that you're a master debater. No doubt you won many debates, back in high school, by using your clever tricks. The point is you're not in school any more, and we're not impressed by your debating skills.; February 24, 2018 at 5:47 PM
Anonymous said...: fy g. While I have been away from this blog you have been committing your hate crimes and evil duke trolling and cyberbullying against kenhyderal and it is time for you to stop acting like an evil duke troll and leave kenhyderal alone so that he can post here without you cyberbullying him and trolling him constantly which you do because you are an evil duke troll. It’s time for you to say goodbye and take your cyberbullying to another blog.; February 24, 2018 at 6:55 PM
guiowen said...: Hey, it's Crybully Tinfoil!; February 24, 2018 at 7:24 PM
guiowen said...: CryBully Cry:
You make Ken Edwards sigh:
He's old enough to know better,
So CryBully Cry!; February 24, 2018 at 7:25 PM
Anonymous said...: I am reporting you g to the fbi for being a hate criminal and a cyberbully and committing hate crimes like the evil duke troll that you are and you have always been. Stop trolling me you evil duke troll.; February 24, 2018 at 7:36 PM
guiowen said...: But CryBully,
You had promised you wouldn't talk about such things any more.
Can't you keep a promise?; February 24, 2018 at 7:39 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous quoting a Ph.D. thesis of Melanie Harris Boston College on the Duke Lacrosse Case said: "Approximately forty men from the Duke Lacrosse team attended." If that approximation is correct it means only 6 did not attend. However there has never been a list compiled of who was there at the time. Of course Finnerty and Seligmann were there but claimed to have left and two guests were identified who were caught in photographs. Sherwood was not tested.; February 24, 2018 at 9:24 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
That's precisely why Nifong should have tested Crystal's clients of the previous 7 days.; February 24, 2018 at 11:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal's latest:

"Anonymous quoting a Ph.D. thesis of Melanie Harris Boston College on the Duke Lacrosse Case said: "Approximately forty men from the Duke Lacrosse team attended. If that approximation is correct it means only 6 did not attend. However there has never been a list compiled of who was there at the time. Of course Finnerty and Seligmann were there but claimed to have left and two guests were identified who were caught in photographs. Sherwood was not tested."

First explain how a crime like the one alleged by Crystal in her police statement could have happened when there was zero evidence, medical, forensic, eye witness testimony that the crime ever happened. You yourself have admitted you can not come up with any evidence, and that your only basis for believing a crime had happened is that you trust Crystal. That is the same Crystal who did say she, when she was interviewed by Linwood Wilson in December of 2006, could not recall being penetrated, the same Crystal who alleged in her police statement in April 2006 that she had been penetrated. Do you really call her credible. Incredible.

It has been documented that the Lacrosse team did cooperate with the authorities. What your Nifong claimed was a dishonorable lack of cooperation from the team was the team asserting their innocence, which they had a right to do, and refusing to incriminate themselves and others. The US Constitution guarantees anyone charged with a crime protection against someone trying to have them incriminate themselves. How could Nifong been seeking justice when he was trying to intimidate the men he wanted to prosecute into incriminating themselves? I say this again. Nifong was seeking incriminating testimony, as is evidenced by the way he had Moez Elmostafa arrested. I call that an attempt to suborn perjured testimony which would support his case.

So far as Reade Seligmann and Colin FInnerty had been present at the party, PROVE PROVE PROVE. Who said they had been there? Kilgo's anonymous Lacrosse player friend? As you HAVE given three different accounts of how Kilgo gave you that story, it is likely you fabricated that story. You yourself are not a very credible witness to anything connected to the Duke Rape Hoax.; February 25, 2018 at 3:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Maybe the crybully is really Kenny anonymously making another impotent attempt to dissuade people from exposing his bullshit for what it is.; February 25, 2018 at 3:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny or Sidney or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.; February 25, 2018 at 4:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, let's go over this again, your assertion that Reade Seligmann and Colin Finnerty were present at the Lacrosse party at the time the alleged crime had happened. As you are the one asserting, you are the one who assumes the obligation to prove.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1858806&page=1 is a link to an ABC news report documenting Reade Seligmann's absence from the party at the time the alleged crime had allegedly happened.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1864425 is a link to Moez Elmostafa who gave a statement supporting Reade Seligmann's alibi, which statement Nifong tried to discredit by having Moez ELmostafa arrested on very weak to non existent grounds. Two of the officers on the case asked Moez ELmostafa if he wanted to change his statement. Moez Elmostafa refused to change his statement, after which he went to trial and the prosecution's evidence was non existent.

This IS from Durham in Wonderland. However, unlike William Cohan, KC Johnson gave references which supports what he wrote, not that you will accept the documentation-you turn a blind eye to all the documentation of the innocence of the Lacrosse players, not because you have any evidence of guilt but because, by your own admission, you trust Crystal.

"12.10am-12.20am: As Kim Roberts and Crystal Mangum went to the back of the house, Finnerty and several other members of the team milled around for a brief period in the living room. At no point during this period was Collin ever alone; several members of the team recalled seeing him leave through the front door.

12.22am: In the first of a series of eight cell phone calls, Finnerty called another member of the team asking whether he wanted to get something to eat.

12.24am: As a reminder, Reade Seligmann has unimpeachable electronic evidence that he wasn’t at 610 N. Buchanan at this time, in the form of an ATM photo from Wachovia Bank; two minutes later, Mangum placed a call from her cellphone to another escort service.

12.27am: Finnerty received a call from a different member of the team; they talked about where and what to eat. By this point, Collin had gone to a house around the corner rented by two other senior lacrosse players—he had to pick up his Playstation, which he had left at the other house. Finnerty’s legal team had all his calls triangulated, and, therefore, could prove how his eight calls were made “on the move” and in different zones away from Buchanan house.

In short, as of 12.27am, Finnerty had unimpeachable electronic evidence that he was not at 610 N. Buchanan."

The challenge is issued: PROVE PROVE PROVE PROVE PROVE that Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann were present at the party house at he time the alleged crime had allegedly happened.; February 25, 2018 at 5:16 AM
JSwift said...: Kenny falsely claims: "However there has never been a list compiled of who was there at the time."

Kenny is a liar.

He knows that Evans included a list of attendees in his written statement. I know that he is aware that Evans' statement contained a list of attendees because he asked that I reproduce it. I was planning on doing so until he violated a request I made that he refrain from relying on intellectually dishonest arguments when replying to my comments.

Kenny is a liar.

John D. Smith
New York, NY; February 25, 2018 at 5:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny or Sidney or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.; February 25, 2018 at 5:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhydral:

More about DNA from http://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article24462769.html:

Part 1

"The absence of DNA evidence didn't matter, Nifong told a forum at North Carolina Central University. 'DNA results can often be helpful, but, you know, I've been doing this for a long time, and for most of the years I've been doing this, we didn't have DNA. We had to deal with sexual assault cases the good old-fashioned way. Witnesses got on the stand and told what happened to them. ... It doesn't mean nothing happened. It just means nothing was left behind.'"

and:

"Although he said that DNA didn't matter, Nifong arranged for a private lab, DNA Security Inc., to run tests on the final samples from the rape kit. The results were the same: Mangum had no DNA from the lacrosse players, but the lab found DNA on her body from at least four unidentified men.

The DNA might have provided evidence on who, if anyone, had assaulted Mangum. Nifong and Brian Meehan, the lab's director, however, agreed that the lab wouldn't report that the rape kit had found DNA from those men.

Nifong showed no interest in finding out whether anyone who wasn't a Duke lacrosse player had assaulted Mangum."

and:

"It took [Brad] Bannon a month to decode the documents from DNA Security: The lab had found DNA from at least four unidentified men on Mangum and in her underwear.

Nifong had never disclosed these results, even though North Carolina's new discovery law required him to hand over 'a report of the results of any examinations or tests conducted by the expert,' and he'd done nothing to identify or investigate these other men."; February 25, 2018 at 9:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhydral:

More about DNA from http://www.mcclatchydc.com/latest-news/article24462769.html:

Part 2

"Nifong said he didn't know about the withheld results, and when the hearing began in open court, Nifong made a similar statement: "The first I heard of this particular situation was when I was served with these reports—this motion—on Wednesday of this week. ... It's crucial that everybody have access to all of the evidence in this case."

Nifong called Brian Meehan of DNA Security to the stand. When Meehan said that he and Nifong had agreed not to report the results of all tests and examinations, some supporters of the Duke players burst into applause. The prosecutor looked ashen, resting his face in his hands or staring down at the table. His DNA expert had become a witness for the defense.

The context, again, was:

The Probable Cause affidavit described a rape in which the perpetrators had deposited their DNA on Crystal.

Crystal's statement described a rape in which the perpetrators had deposited their DNA on Crystal.

The NTO requiring every white member of the lacrossse team to give samples for DNA analysis said the DNA found on the Rape kit would identify the perpetrators and exonerate the innocent.

The DNA did not match the DNA of any member of the Lacrosse team or the DNA of any party attendee. So far as no list of party attendees, Nifong himself did not make any effort to compile any complete list of attendees who might have been there, meaning that Nifong himself did not believe there were any unidentified party attendees.

So, whether or not Reade Seligmann or Collin FInnerty had been at the party at the time of the alleged crime allegedly happened is irrelevant. THE CRIME NEVER HAPPENED.

And when Nifon was complaining that no one on the Lacrosse team ever came forth with any testimony to establish the crime had happened was Nifong pressuring members of the Lacrosse team to provide FALSE testimony.

So how does all this add up to a quest for justice on the part of Nifong?; February 25, 2018 at 9:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny or Sidney or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.; February 25, 2018 at 11:17 AM
kenhyderal said...: JSwift said:"He knows that Evans included a list of attendees in his written statement. I know that he is aware that Evans' statement contained a list of attendees because he asked that I reproduce it. I was planning on doing so until he violated a request I made that he refrain from relying on intellectually dishonest arguments when replying to my comments"......................................................................... I know no such thing. You can't because he didn't. It's got nothing to do with me.; February 25, 2018 at 3:03 PM
kenhyderal said...: JSwift said: "Kenny is a liar".....................You're getting almost as bad as Dr. Anonymous; throwing out baseless charges. I'm not lying. I believe in what I say. Show me the list and I will admit my error; February 25, 2018 at 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...: fKenhyderal:

"JSwift said: "Kenny is a liar".....................You're getting almost as bad as Dr. Anonymous; throwing out baseless charges. I'm not lying. I believe in what I say. Show me the list and I will admit my error".

You are a liar and you do not admit your errors. You try to bullshit your way around and through them.

One lie, that Nifong did not charge the Lacrosse players with rape.

Another lie, that Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty were present in the Lacrosse party house at the time the alleged crime allegedly took place.

A Gross Lie: that Nifong was seeking justice rather than truth in the Lacrosse Hoax.

Another lie, that the male DNA from Crystal came from unidentified rapists at the Lacrosse party.

It is your dishonesty and your guilt presuming racism which prevents you from recognizing your lies.

G; February 25, 2018 at 4:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal, maybe not lie but a gross distortion:

Your list of what you call the dishonorable behavior of the Lacrosse team when they did not provide Nifong with evidence that the rape happened in your comment of February 24, 2018 at 9:16 AM. No one came forth with incriminating evidence because there was no evidence that the alleged crime ever happened.

When it comes to gross lying, you are trying to promulgate the vicious lie that Crystal had been raped.

And you may not have lied but you did promulgate an error when you said quasi-probable was a word found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary and then you did try to bullshit your way around and through your error.; February 25, 2018 at 4:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, you also support Sidney's gross lies, that the Carpet bagger jihad was responsible for Nifong's disbarment, that the NC State Bar intervened in the case as soon as Nifong initiated the prosecution-the NC State Bar did not get involved in the case until December of 206, the lie that AG Cooper intervened as soon as Nifong started prosecuting-the AG took over the case at the request of Nifong after the State Bar filed ethics charges, Sidney's lie that the complaint against Nifong was so weak that the State Bar had to revise it and re file it-the NC State Bar filed a second complaint after it learned Nifong had concealed exculpatory evidence.

All this adds up to is you are someone who does play fast and loose with the truth and you support someone who plays fast and loose with the truth more intensely than you do.; February 25, 2018 at 4:17 PM
guiowen said...: To everyone here:
Kenny doesn't lie. It's just that what we consider the truth is "out of context" for Kenny. If he says something today, tomorrow he will say that's not the case. You can't expect him to remember something that's out of context.; February 25, 2018 at 4:44 PM
guiowen said...: The following note from Kenny will explain why nothing he says can ever be considered a lie:

Kenny 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"; February 25, 2018 at 4:55 PM
Anonymous said...: From Guiowen:

"Kenny 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'"

Kenny, what do you call it when you call the Lacrosse defendants rapists. You yourself have conceded you have no factual evidence that the rape ever happened, that you believe the rape happened because you trust Crystal, and numerous journalists have documented that Crystal never told a credible story but rather multiple contradictory stories to investigators.

May not qualify as an ad hominem attack by your definition but it is a vicious unjustified attack on innocent men.

You are not preaching from the moral high ground here.; February 25, 2018 at 6:08 PM
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".........................You have difficulty in accepting my veracity because if you accept that I am sincere then it would be raise some doubt about the metanarrative disseminated by The Duke Lacrosse Defence. Let me explain, in simple terms simple . I acknowledged I forgot that exchange some time in the distant past and I explained why I forgot since it seemed to have no relationship to what was under discussion at the time. Desperate to label me a liar you look for obscure and inconsequential times I misspoke and jump on them a gotcha moment to supposedly prove your thesis. Is that the best you can come up with?; February 25, 2018 at 9:26 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. A. Said: " You yourself have conceded you have no factual evidence that the rape ever happened, that you believe the rape happened because you trust Crystal, and numerous journalists have documented that Crystal never told a credible story but rather multiple contradictory stories to investigators. May not qualify as an ad hominem attack by your definition but it is a vicious unjustified attack on innocent men"........................................ I have not conceded that. You and I have a difference on what constitute a fact and what constitutes an opinion
And also on what constitutes direct evidence, physical evidence or what constitutes circumstantial evidence; February 25, 2018 at 9:36 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
You're always forgetting lots of things because of context. What about the time you assured me I could find some strange word in a dictionary?
But don't worry, Kenny: I long ago stopped expecting reasonable arguments from you.; February 25, 2018 at 10:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"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"........................."

"You have difficulty in accepting my veracity because if you accept that I am sincere then it would be raise some doubt about the metanarrative disseminated by The Duke Lacrosse Defence."

Kenny, Guiowen and others have doubts about your veracity because you are deficient, if not devoid of veracity. There is an example in this post of yours about the "metanarrative disseminated by The Duke Lacrosse Defence." There was no metanarrative spun by the Duke defense. The defendants proved themselves innocent because they had evidence they were and Nifong had no evidence that they were guilty, and neither do you.

"Let me explain, in simple terms simple . I acknowledged I forgot that exchange some time in the distant past and I explained why I forgot since it seemed to have no relationship to what was under discussion at the time. Desperate to label me a liar you look for obscure and inconsequential times I misspoke and jump on them a gotcha moment to supposedly prove your thesis. Is that the best you can come up with?"

It is a whole lot better than what you can come up with, e.g., your response to the issue, why did Nifong have indicted for rape three men who could not possibly raped Crystal-the male DNA found on Crystal did not match their DNA. Your response was that Nifong did not have them inc=dicted and charged with rape.; February 26, 2018 at 2:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. A. Said: ' You yourself have conceded you have no factual evidence that the rape ever happened, that you believe the rape happened because you trust Crystal, and numerous journalists have documented that Crystal never told a credible story but rather multiple contradictory stories to investigators. May not qualify as an ad hominem attack by your definition but it is a vicious unjustified attack on innocent men'"........................................ I have not conceded that."

Yes you have. I on many occasions challenged you to prove that Crystal had been raped. You did reply, even if you deny it, that you did not need proof, you trusted Crystal. I have pointed out to you on many times how that attitude was Scottsboro-ish(and I recognize that is a word I have coined and do not insist it is in the dictionary-"nifong" is in a dictionary somewhere and it means to wrongfully prosecute someone), meaning your attitude towards the innocent men is the same kind of attitude the persecutors of the Scottsboro boys had towards the Scottsboro boys.

"You and I have a difference on what constitute a fact and what constitutes an opinion"

No, you ignore facts pointed out to you, e.g. it is a fact there is no evidence Crystal was ever raped and you have said that you needed no evidence to prove Crystal was raped because you believe her. You have also said you believe Kilgo's claim about an anonymous Lacrosse player who witnessed the rape of Crystal because it agrees with what Crystal told you. You can not identify facts. You deny facts which do not mesh with your guilt presuming racism.

"And also on what constitutes direct evidence, physical evidence or what constitutes circumstantial evidence"

Which is irrelevant in this situation of the Duke RAPE HOAX because there is and there never was any evidence, physical, direct or circumstantial to prove Crystal ever told the truth when she alleged she had been raped.

PS You HAVE given three different accounts of how you learned about Kilgo's supposed anonymous Lacrosse player friend. I have always given the same account, that when challenged to prove Crystal had been raped you said you did not need proof because you trust Crystal; February 26, 2018 at 2:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal;

You deny that you have said, in response to multiple challenges to prove Crystal had been raped, you do not need proof because you trust Crystal.

So, let's go back to square 1.PROVE PROVE PROVE Crystal had been raped.

What you have offered so far:

Kilgo told you that an anonymous Lacrosse player witnessed Crystal being raped by multiple unidentified non lacrosse player attendees. That proves nothing. As either A Lawyer or Walt have pointed out, that is double hearsay. That said anonymous Lacrosse player has not come forward in almost 12 years is evidence, not because he was intimidated but because he never exissted.

Male DNA found on Crystal, which did not match the DNA of any Caucasian Lacrosse playe, was found on Crystal. You call that evidence of unidentified rapists on the basis of it did not match the DNA of any man in Crystal's documented consensual sexual history. But you have also said the timing of DNA deposition can not be determined.

This is something I found when I researched the Scottsboro boys case, that evidence of semen was found on one of the accusers, but no motile sperm were detected, and motile sperm persist for 12-48 hours. Julie Manley, who identified a whitish fluid in Crystal's genital tract did not do a wet mount, a simple, low tech test which would have documented motile sperm if they were present. ID of motile sperm would not only confirmed the presence of Semen but also confirmed that the semen could have been posited during the Lacrosse party which happened less than 12 hours before Crystal had been taken to DUMC ER. As I recall, you called the wet mount unnecessary CYA medicine, which shows you do not know as much as you purport to know.

I say again, when the SBI crime lab tested the rape kit materials, the results were no blood, no semen, no saliva. The rape kit materials tested negative for Alkaline Phosphatase, and you have commented on how fast Alkaline Phbosphatase dissipates after intercoursee. If the rape kit did not test for positive for Alkaline Phosphatase it would say, if that fluid had been semen, it must have been deposited before the party(we do know Crystal did not engage in sex between the time she left the party and arrived at the DUMC ER.

So I repeat the challenge, PROVE PROVE PROVE Crystal had been raped at the Lacrosse Party. In her statement to the police she did allege she had been rapec.; February 26, 2018 at 5:06 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney:

Regarding your claim that Nifong did not conceal the DNA evidence:

from http://www.slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/accepting-a-pardon-from-trump-could-add-booster-rockets-to-state-prosecutions.html:

"Nifong has repeatedly claimed that he ultimately did nothing wrong because the defense eventually received the DNA results. North Carolina's discovery law, however, clearly required the results to be included in a report prepared last April, not handed over months later."

This has been explained to you years ago. Turning over thousands of pages of raw data 8 months or so after he got the report does not add up to Nifong complying with NC law regarding disclosure of exculpatory evidence.

The fact that the DNA did not match the DNA of any member or the Lacrosse team is what made it exculpatory.

February 24, 2018 at 10:44 AM

Hey, Anony.

Let's face it. Laws made by the North Carolina General Assembly are not always reasonable or pass common sense muster. Consider that following the recent horrific Florida school shooting, NC House Speaker Tim Moore wanted volunteer officers guarding North Carolina schools. How ridiculous is that? (This while slashing school budgets to allow bigger tax breaks for the one percenters.)

Just because DNA results are handed in later than required by statute does not amount to withholding of evidence as interpreted by a reasonable man. Furthermore, it is not reasonable or competent practice for attorneys to rely on a report presented by opposing counsel that avers either the presence or absence of exculpatory evidence. Surely, for the interests of his/her client, any lawyer worthy of his salt would review a report or have his/her experts review a report of such import.

Nifong fulfilled his legal obligation by turning over the lab results. And, who's to say that his determination was that the report contained no exculpatory information. In fact, I believe that that was his defense on that point.; February 26, 2018 at 5:16 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Kenny, Sidney, here is something for you:

Would either one of you have wanted to be treated like the Scottsboro boys? I think not.

So why do the two of you treat the Lacrosse defendants, who are innocent because it has been proven the rape Crystal alleged never happened(for Sidney's benefit it has never been proven Crystal ever told the truth) the way the Scottsboro boys were treated?

February 24, 2018 at 10:21 AM

In answer to your rhetorical question, no... I would not like to be treated like the Scottsboro boys. In other words, I would not like to be treated unjustly.

However, the Scottsboro boys and Crystal Mangum are the ones who were denied justice. The Duke Lacrosse defendants received justice... or perhaps the benefit of privileged justice in that they were never incarcerated or sentenced.

With regards to Crystal Mangum, it has never been proven by the State that Crystal Mangum was not sexually assaulted at the Duke Lacrosse beer-guzzling/stripper-ogling party. If so, where's the evidence. Roy Cooper never made an attempt to divulge any information or evidence to prove that Mangum was not sexually assaulted.

Mangum's complaint of being denied a fair trial and justice is based mainly upon evidence from prosecution discovery.

Also, keep in mind that the rape charge was dropped by Nifong due to semantics regarding the legal definition of the word "rape."; February 26, 2018 at 5:28 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

In the next day or so, I plan on posting a relevant opinion piece which invites your comments related to the specific subject matter.

Also, I have completed Part One of my next sharlog titled "Problematic Larceny of Chose in Action Charge." Hopefully I will have Part Two completed by week's end... at least that's what I'm shooting for.

Have been busy on other fronts on my one-man war against the State. It is my hope that a decisive battle looms just over the horizon.

As you were.; February 26, 2018 at 5:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

PTOVE PROVE PROVE Crystal had been raped.

put up or shut up.; February 26, 2018 at 5:36 AM
A Reasonable Man said...: "Just because DNA results are handed in later than required by statute does not amount to withholding of evidence as interpreted by a reasonable man.

Sid -- Handing in DNA results later than required IS precisely the definition of "withholding evidence".; February 26, 2018 at 5:57 AM
A Reasonable Man said...: "Mangum's complaint of being denied a fair trial and justice is based mainly upon evidence from prosecution discovery."

Just because Mangum complains about being denied a fair trial and justice does not amount to a fair trial and justice being withheld as interpreted by a reasonable man.; February 26, 2018 at 6:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"
Hey, Anony.

"Let's face it. Laws made by the North Carolina General Assembly are not always reasonable or pass common sense muster. Consider that following the recent horrific Florida school shooting, NC House Speaker Tim Moore wanted volunteer officers guarding North Carolina schools. How ridiculous is that? (This while slashing school budgets to allow bigger tax breaks for the one percenters.)"

You ARE implying that the section of the NC Code which states that the report of an NTO MUST be delivered to those subjected to the NTO as rapidly as possible is unereasonable.

"Just because DNA results are handed in later than required by statute does not amount to withholding of evidence as interpreted by a reasonable man."

As you are not and never have been a reasonable man, your statement is meaningless. Under NC Law and Federal Law, an accused is entitled to have any evidence which is exculpatory. What is unreasonable about turning over that evidence in a rapid manner, as soon as it is available.

"Furthermore, it is not reasonable or competent practice for attorneys to rely on a report presented by opposing counsel that avers either the presence or absence of exculpatory evidence. Surely, for the interests of his/her client, any lawyer worthy of his salt would review a report or have his/her experts review a report of such import."

Yes it is. That is exactly what the Defense counsel for the innocent wrongfully accused Lacrosse players did when they exposed Nifong's attempt to conceal exculpatory evidence. How does nullify the law that the results of the NTO MUST be provided to the subjects of the NTO in a timely matter, and THAT INCLUDES THE REPORT.

"Nifong fulfilled his legal obligation by turning over the lab results."

NIFONG DID NOT TURN OVER THE REPORT IN A TIMELY MANNER AS HE WAS REQUIRED BY LAW, HE TURNED OVER THE RAW DATA AFTER HE WAS ORDERED TO DO SO BY THE COURT. THEREFORE HE FAILED TO MEET HIS LEGAL OBLIGATION. A DECENT HONORABLE MINISTER OF JUSTICE WOULD HAVE TURNED OVER THE REPORT ONCE HE HAD IT!!!

"And, who's to say that his determination was that the report contained no exculpatory information. In fact, I believe that that was his defense on that point."

The situation, again, was, in the Probable cause affidavit and in Crystal's police statement what was described was a rape in which the perpetrators had deposited their DNA. The DNA found on the rape kit did not match the DNA of the men Nifong had indicted and charged. The NTO stated that the DNA would identify the perpetrators. No reasonable man, no decent, honorable minister of justice would have concluded the evidence was NOT exculpatory. At one time you did say that the evidence was not exculpatory because it did not prove the accused did not rape Crystal, showing that you, like your wacko-lyte Kenny, are a guilt presuming racist.; February 26, 2018 at 6:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Kenny, Sidney, here is something for you:

Would either one of you have wanted to be treated like the Scottsboro boys? I think not.

So why do the two of you treat the Lacrosse defendants, who are innocent because it has been proven the rape Crystal alleged never happened(for Sidney's benefit it has never been proven Crystal ever told the truth) the way the Scottsboro boys were treated?

February 24, 2018 at 10:21 AM

"In answer to your rhetorical question, no... I would not like to be treated like the Scottsboro boys. In other words, I would not like to be treated unjustly.

However, the Scottsboro boys and Crystal Mangum are the ones who were denied justice. The Duke Lacrosse defendants received justice... or perhaps the benefit of privileged justice in that they were never incarcerated or sentenced."

As there was no evidence Crystal ever told the truth when she alleged she had been raped and neither you nor your wacko-lyte have ever provided any evidence. Ergo, when the AG revealed the truth, that the Lacrosse players were, as a matter of real world fact, innocent, Crystal was not denied justice when her hoax was exposed. Explain just exposing a wrongful prosecution is privileged justice. I guess you think it was not at all out of line that Nifong accused them publicly without evidence, that Nifong called anyone who, after being publicly accused of a crime, retained a lawyer was indicating guilt, that an accused who availed himself of his right to protect himself against self incrimination was indicating guilt.

"With regards to Crystal Mangum, it has never been proven by the State that Crystal Mangum was not sexually assaulted at the Duke Lacrosse beer-guzzling/stripper-ogling party. If so, where's the evidence. Roy Cooper never made an attempt to divulge any information or evidence to prove that Mangum was not sexually assaulted."

Here again you manifest your guilt presuming racism in a very Joseph Goebbels way, repeating your garbage over and over thinking someone will believe it. The issue is, no one ever proved Crystal was lying. THE ISSUE IS, CONSIDERING THE PROSECUTION'S OBLIGATION TO PROVE GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THERE WAS ZERO EVIDENCE CRYSTAL EVER TOLD THE TRUTH.

Mangum's complaint of being denied a fair trial and justice is based mainly upon evidence from prosecution discovery.

Thw innocence of the Lacrosse players was established when it was revealed that Nifong withheld prosecution discovery from the defendants when he waa legally obligated to give them that discovery material.

"Also, keep in mind that the rape charge was dropped by Nifong due to semantics regarding the legal definition of the word "rape."

A reasonable decent minister of justice would have interviewed Crystal sooner than almost 9 months after she had made her allegation of rape, nearly 8 months after she had described in her statement to the police a rape in which she had been penetrated. Nifong did not have her directly interviewed until December of 2006.

And considering the description Crystal gave was of a penetrating rape in which the perpetrators had deposited their DNA, in view of the fact that the DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of the men Nifong had charged, if Nifong were a decent honorable minister of justice, he would have dropped all the charges in December of 2006 instead of pushing a prosecution no reasonable man would have considered justified.; February 26, 2018 at 6:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney:

Regarding the Scottsboro boys, even if he denies it, I do recall Kenny posting that he did not need proof that Crystal had been raped because he trusted Crystal, which does say that the Lacrosse defendants should have been convicted on the word of Crystal Mangum, the false accuser

The attitude of those who persecuted the Scottsboro boys was, convict them solely on the word of the false accusers.

Both you and Kenny take the position that the Lacrosse defendants should have been convicted solely on the word of Crystal, and I say that because neither one of you have ever come up with evidence that Crystal had told the truth when she alleged she had been raped, and you keep repeating over and over the legally weightless statement that no one ever proved Crystal had lied.

Ergo, you and Kenny are on the same level as those racists who persecuted the Scotsboro boys, and your claim that you would not like to be treated like one of the Scottsboro boys is another manifestation of Harrian hypocrisy. You think it is acceptable to treat Caucasian rape defendants the same way the Scottsboro boys were treated.; February 26, 2018 at 6:40 AM
Anonymous said...: How about it Kenny. Prove Crystal was raped.; February 26, 2018 at 9:28 AM
kenhyderal said...: That would have been the States' burden, beyond a reasonable doubt and before a Jury of the Player's peers, to prove. Crystal was denied that adjudication. AG Cooper was under extreme pressure by powerful interests to make the case disappear. Crystal was a poor marginalized person considered to be of little or no consequence except to those who know her.; February 26, 2018 at 9:49 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. A. said: "You think it is acceptable to treat Caucasian rape defendants the same way the Scottsboro boys were treated'..................No, we think it unacceptable to treat any human being the way the Scottsboro boys, the Central Park Five or Crystal Mangum in the Daye case was treated.; February 26, 2018 at 9:53 AM
A Reasonable Man said...: "That would have been the States' burden, beyond a reasonable doubt and before a Jury of the Player's peers, to prove. Crystal was denied that adjudication.

I would suggest everyone (especially Kenhyderal) simply read Robert Mosteller's piece here in the Fordham Review:

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4328&context=flr

It refutes the arguments laid out by Ken, Sid and others better than I can.; February 26, 2018 at 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...: More Kenhyderal bullshit:

Part 1:

"That would have been the States' burden, beyond a reasonable doubt and before a Jury of the Player's peers, to prove"

From https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-prosecutors-decide-which-cases-charge.html:

"By contrast, prosecutors can file formal charges only if they believe that they can prove a suspect guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

I again remind you, the probable cause affidavit described a rape in which the perpetrators deposited their DNA on Crystal. Crystal described a rape in which the perpetrators had deposited their DNA on her. The NTO which required all Caucasian Lacrosse players to give samples for DNA analysis said the DNA found on Crystal would identify the perpetrators. The DNA found on Crystal did not match the three men Nifong had indicted for and charged with first degree forcible rape. The three men who were indicted for and charged with forcible rape could not have been the perpetrators. Why did Nifong go after the Lacrosse team members and not the men who had left their DNA on Crystal? There was no way Nifong could have proved a rape even happened in a fair and objective trial so where did he have probable cause to take the case to trial. Crystal's word. If that is what you believe, you do believe that the Lacrosse defendants should have been convicted solely on Crystal's word,just like the Scottsboro persecutors believed the Scottsboro boys should be convicted solely on the word of the false accusers.

"Crystal was denied that adjudication."

What principle of law specifies that a complaining witness is entitled to have someone tried for a crime solely on the word of the complaining witness?; February 26, 2018 at 10:22 AM
Anonymous said...: More Kenhyderal Bullshit:

Part 2

"AG Cooper was under extreme pressure by powerful interests to make the case disappear."

The only pressure exerted on AG Cooper came from a black newspaper which pressured AG Cooper to not only to prosecute the case but to convict the defendants:

"The Wilmington Journal, part of North Carolina’s Black Press network, threatened state Attorney General Roy Cooper with political retaliation if he failed to hammer the lacrosse players. Again, the question of whether they had committed a sexual assault of any kind seemed quite secondary. In a January 18 open letter from “North Carolina’s African-American community, and anyone else who believes true justice comes from the gavel of a judge, not the demands of a mob; or slick, race-baiting baiting defense attorneys,” the paper demanded a comprehensive review of “the team’s drunken, perverted party last March.” The editorial urged Cooper to consider charges of obstructing justice against every person who attended the party because they had refused to speak with Sgt. Mark Gottlieb before consulting with an attorney. The editorial also demanded that the attorney general ignore public opinion, concluding with an implicit threat to seek political retribution against him: “After all, as a Democrat, just like Mike Nifong, you need the Black vote for any future political aspirations.”

Taylor Jr., Stuart. Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case (pp. 332-333). St. Martin's Press. Kindle Edition.

You tried that bullshit before and failed. Why did you think youcould try it again and succeed?

"Crystal was a poor marginalized person considered to be of little or no consequence except to those who know her."

Crystal was a false accuser in the DUke Rape Hoax, nothing more. Her only use to Nifong was to be used as a means winning an election which he was losing.

PROVE PROVE PEOVE Crystal was raped.; February 26, 2018 at 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderalian Hypocrisy:

"Dr. A. said: "You think it is acceptable to treat Caucasian rape defendants the same way the Scottsboro boys were treated'..................No, we think it unacceptable to treat any human being the way the Scottsboro boys, the Central Park Five or Crystal Mangum in the Daye case was treated. "

Kenhyderal believes that the Lacrosse defendants should have been convicted solely on the word of Crystal. The persecutors of the Scottsboro boys believed that the Scottsboro boys should have been convicted solely on the word of the false accusers.

Kenny, PROVE PROVE PROVE ANYONE RAPED CRYSTAL AT THE LACROSSE PARTY.

PROVE PROVE PROVE Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty were present at the party at the time the alleged crime allegedly happened.; February 26, 2018 at 10:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Regarding trial, what is guaranteed in the Constitution of the US is that a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to a fair, honest, objective trial, and Nifong had no intention to conduct a fair, honest, objective trial, as he wanted to take the case to trial even though he had evidence which exonerated the defendants.; February 26, 2018 at 10:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhydral:

From the link given in the comment from February 26, 2018 at 10:21 AM:

"American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules provisions on the "Special
Responsibilities of a Prosecutor" and, along with the vast majority of other
states, its Rule 3.8(a). II That provision sets out the single direct command
of the responsibility not to prosecute the innocent: "refrain from
prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable
cause."

Crystal was not entitled to any adjudication of her complaint unless there was evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she had told the truth. If the Duke Rape Hoax there was zero evidence the crime ever happened.; February 26, 2018 at 10:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenyhyderal stole my wallet containing $4000.00 (Canadian -- which is like, I don't know, $31.00 US or something)....

I demand a trial before a jury of Kenny's peers. Anything less would be denying me that adjudication.; February 26, 2018 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: PS -- Kilgo is my witness to Kenny's thievery.; February 26, 2018 at 11:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Your comment of February 26, 2018 at 9:49 AM is an admission on your part that you can not provide any factual evidence that Crystal had been raped. If you really believe what you said at February 26, 2018 at 9:49 AM, that Crystal was denied adjudication of her complaint, based on this manifestations of your guilt presuming racism and the total lack of evidence, it is an obvious you believe the defendants should have been convicted solely on Crystal's word.; February 26, 2018 at 11:15 AM
Anonymous said...: From https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nifong:

"verb To use the law to destroy innocent people."

from http://www.wordnik.com/words/Nifong:

"To make a self-serving, politically-motivated accusation or prosecution."

from To make a self-serving, politically-motivated accusation or prosecution.:

"slander, accuse or persecute without cause and "to pursue or harass relentlessly without justification."

from; February 26, 2018 at 3:42 PM
Anonymous said...: For Kenhyderal:

from https://books.google.com/books?id=OjbmBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=definition+of+to+nifong+someone&source=bl&ots=21ah1McQ2l&sig=gvVqmHPNNBwsnKMgr5prXRVU2Os&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi47dTH38TZAhVHmlkKHT83DIIQ6AEIVjAJ#v=onepage&q=definition%20of%20to%20nifong%20someone&f=false

From Price of Silence: "we were able to identify assailants as CAUCASIAN(emphasis added) members of the lacrosse team”

"; February 26, 2018 at 3:46 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said: Crystal was not entitled to any adjudication of her complaint unless there was evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she had told the truth. ............................Shouldn't that be probable cause of a crime for charging. Only for guilt is it beyond a reasonable doubt.; February 26, 2018 at 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

" Blogger kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: Crystal was not entitled to any adjudication of her complaint unless there was evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she had told the truth. ............................Shouldn't that be probable cause of a crime for charging. Only for guilt is it beyond a reasonable doubt."

Without any evidence Crystal ever told the truth when she alleged she had been raped, without evidence that a crime had happened, where was the probable cause?; February 26, 2018 at 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_8_special_responsibilities_of_a_prosecutor.html

"The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;"

What established probable cause in the Duke rape hoax?

Crystal's identifications of the three defendants? The lineup in which she identified the defendants was not conducted properly. In a fair and objective trial, to which the defendants were entitled that evidence would never have been admissable.

Physical evidence. Supposedly there was a police report that Crystal had injuries consistent with rape, as determined by the physical exam. Whoever performed the physical exam and it was not Tara Levicy, is supposed to document specific injuries. Injuries consistent with rape does not document specific injuries.

DNA evidence, and here we go again. The probable cause affidavit described a rape in which Crystal's alleged assailants penetrated her and deposited their DNA on her. Crystal in her police statement described a rape in which her assailants had penetrated her and deposited their DNA on her. The NTO said the DNA found on Crystal would identify the rapists. The DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of the three Lacrosse players who were indicted for and charged with first degree forcible rape.

There was no probable cause to take the three indicted defendants to trial. Crystal had no right to have the case go to trial.

And you are again arguing, even if you are incapable of recognizing it, that the case should have gone to trial solely because of Crystal's uncorroborated word. I say again that the persecutors of the Scottsboro boys believed the Scottsboro boys should have been convicted solely on the word of the false accusers.; February 26, 2018 at 5:43 PM
Anonymous said...: One more for Kenhyderal:

http://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/2-4-the-burden-of-proof/

"The plaintiff or prosecutor generally has the burden of proving the case, including every element of it."

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

"Corpus delicti (Latin: "body of the crime"; plural: corpora delicti) is a term from Western jurisprudence referring to the principle that a crime must be proved to have occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime.

What proved that a crime had happened in the Duke incident. You might argue the Male DNA found on Crystal. Again, that DNA did not match the DNA of the three men who were indicted for and charged with the crime of first degree rape. So it again comes down to, there was no probable cause to take the case to trial, even if the Grand Jury did hand down an indictment.

And the question arises again, which you try to duck, why did Nifong make no effort to identify the men who actually had left their DNA on Crystal?

You have tried to bullshit your way around and through this one by lying, by claiming that Nifong did not have the Duke defendants indicted for rape. You have also argued that Nifong believed if he had indicted the Lacrosse players they would be frightened into fingering the actual rapists. I challenge you again to cite some legal source which says that is a legitimate legal tactic to identify perpetrators.; February 26, 2018 at 5:54 PM
kenhyderal said...: A Reasonable Man said: "I would suggest everyone (especially Kenhyderal) simply read Robert Mosteller's piece here in the Fordham Review:"................................A minutely crafted and carefully reference review that is unfortunately highly selective, mirroring AG Cooper's report. He fails to mention that three witnesses testified that Crystal arrived seemingly sober but only became impaired after being handed a drink that appeared to suddenly and precipitously incapacitate her. After her alleged sexual assault and while still impaired she was taken to the intake center where she suddenly recovered and showed no signs of intoxication. All tests for common illicit drugs at the hospital were negative, cannabis cocaine heroin GHB etc. The sudden onset and complete recovery after less then an hour is highly indicative of the date rape drug chloral hydrate not often tested for. Drinking beers and taking a prescription muscle relaxant as she did hours before, although unadvised would not and could not produce such choral hydrate like symptoms. There was never any definitive accounting of who was in fact there.; February 26, 2018 at 8:54 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Please stop trying to sound smart. Nobody here believes any of what you say.; February 26, 2018 at 9:09 PM
kenhyderal said...: Trying to sound smart?? How does one do that?; February 26, 2018 at 9:34 PM
guiowen said...: One sounds smart by saying smart things. You try very hard but don't succeed.; February 26, 2018 at 10:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderaal:

Part 1:

"A Reasonable Man said: "I would suggest everyone (especially Kenhyderal) simply read Robert Mosteller's piece here in the Fordham Review:"................................A minutely crafted and carefully reference review that is unfortunately highly selective, mirroring AG Cooper's report."

What did he select out?

"He fails to mention that three witnesses testified that Crystal arrived seemingly sober but only became impaired after being handed a drink that appeared to suddenly and precipitously incapacitate her."

You select out that two other witnesses gave statements that Crystal was impaired when she arrived. In guilt presuming fashion you sy that their testimony was self serving, that they were trying to cover up a crime. If that is not guilt presuming on your part, then what is it? You also selectively omit that Crystal admitted to drinking a large amount of beer and taking fleseril, a combination known to cause incapacitation BEFORE she arrived at the party. You say Crystal had done that before without suffering any impairment. Who told you that? Crystal, who could not RELIABLY identify any Lacrosse player as her assailants in multiple lineup procedures, including the grossly improper procedure in which she accused two men who had not been at the party at the time the alleged crime allegedly happened(you say they were, so prove it), and she identified a man with a mustache(she said David Evans had a mustache when he raped her), who never had a mustache.; February 27, 2018 at 4:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Part 2:

"After her alleged sexual assault and while still impaired she was taken to the intake center where she suddenly recovered and showed no signs of intoxication."

What you select out here is that she drove away from the party with Kim ROberts/Pittman who called 911 not to report a rape but to report that she and her girlfriend had been called N---er. Kim then drove Crystal to a grocery store parking lot and asked a security guard to forcibly remove Crystal from her car. Then a police officer was called, whose impression was that Crystal was drunk. He took her to the Durham Access center for involuntary commitment for detox. There a nurse asked her if she had been raped and Crystal replied yes, and that was the first time Crystal ever claimed rape. You claimed Kim was unaware of the rape. In her police statement Crystal said she had told Kim she had been raped. Crystal obviously lied as Kim was obviously unaware of any claim of rape."

"All tests for common illicit drugs at the hospital were negative, cannabis cocaine heroin GHB etc. The sudden onset and complete recovery after less then an hour is highly indicative of the date rape drug chloral hydrate not often tested for."

You are saying, you ignore the statements that Crystal was impaired when she arrived, you believe Chloral Hydrate was administered Chloral Hydrate because it was not tested for and you interpret her impairment to be consistent with Chloral Hydrate. If you ever testified to that in court, the opposing counsel would challenge you to show you ever had any experience with Chioral Hydrate and you would be unable to show you ever had any experience.

"Drinking beers and taking a prescription muscle relaxant as she did hours before, although unadvised would not and could not produce such choral hydrate like symptoms."

I say, you are not really knowledgeable about Chloral Hydrate, and people who have had experience with Flexeril advise people NOT to mix Flexeril with alcohol, so your beliefs have no legal or forensic signuficance, They are only manifestations of your guilt presumption.

"There was never any definitive accounting of who was in fact there."

There is no evidence there were any unidentified party attendees. You cite Kilgo's anonymous Lacrosse player friend, but that claim has zero credibility as you HAVE given three different accounts of how Kilgo told you that. I say again, since you are asserting there were unidentified party attendees, it is your obligation to prove that. No one has any obligation to disprove that. You have never provided any evidence that there were unidentified party attendees. The results of the SBI crime lab testing of the rape kit materials shows that no DNA, no semen could have been deposited on Crystal at the party, and I remind you that Crystal alleged in her police statement was that semen and DNA was deposited on her at the party.; February 27, 2018 at 4:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

'Trying to sound smart?? How does one do that?"

To find out, read one of your comments.; February 27, 2018 at 4:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

from https://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/18/the-duke-rape-case-and-prosecutorial-abuse/:

"Like Nifong, the Scottsboro prosecutors ignored the conspicuous absence of forensic and medical evidence supporting the rape charges — particularly the lack of bruises or torn clothing. (One girl later admitted that they had made up the story to avoid getting in trouble with the law themselves.) All nine Scottsboro defendants were convicted in one-day trials and sentenced to death, with the exception of a 13-year-old boy who was spared death by one holdout juror. (After the Supreme Court intervened and after multiple trials and pardons, the accused were released years later.)

And, as you support Nifong's prosecution of the Lacrosse players solely on the word of a false accuser, you attitude is as racist as the attitude of the persecutors of the Scottsboro boys. Your denials are not at all credible.

and:

"Prosecutors are sworn to protect the rights of the accused as well as the accuser, to refuse to pursue cases that would not serve the interests of justice. Yet in today’s environment, it appears that prosecutors can never be too tough, the way models can never be too skinny."

As Nifong had no evidence a rape had happened, as Nifong had evidence that the men he had indicted could not have been the perpetrators of the alleged crime, how was he protecting the rights of he accused when DID have them indicted for first degree forcible rape? You DID on a couple of occasions on this blog say that Nifong had them indicted for sexual assault and kidnapping hoping they would be frightened into naming others as the rapists. How is that protective of the rights of the accused. Taking what Marsha Goodenow said about threatening to charge Lacrosse players with aiding and abetting if they did not come forward with testimony which implicated others in the alleged rape, such a tactic is as likely to produce a false accusation as it is to produce a true accusation. Again, how is that protective of the rights of an accused?

Now you have another opportunity to try to look smart and DENY DENY DENY.; February 27, 2018 at 5:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Ken said:

"Anonymous said: Crystal was not entitled to any adjudication of her complaint unless there was evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she had told the truth. ............................Shouldn't that be probable cause of a crime for charging. Only for guilt is it beyond a reasonable doubt."

Yes, but there wasn't probable cause either. Without first establishing probable cause that a crime has been committed and that a particular person or persons committed it, there is no need to prove guilt. A mere allegation doesn't establish probable cause. Especially when that allegation is refuted by the physical evidence, witness testimony, alibi witnesses and the accuser changes her story multiple times. In any event, the lacrosse case, which is concluded, has no bearing on Crystal's current predicament.; February 27, 2018 at 5:42 AM
Anonymous said...: For Sidney Harr:

part 1

You claim that Nifong was in compliance with the law when he turned over the raw data to the Lacrosse defendants

From https://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_15a/Article_14.pdf:

"§ 15A-282. Copy of results to person involved.
A person who has been the subject of nontestimonial identification procedures or his attorney MUST(emphasis added) be provided with a copy of any reports of test results AS SOON AS THE REPORTS ARE AVAILABLE(emphasis added). (1973, c. 1286, s. 1.)"

From http://www.vanceholmes.com/court/trial_duke_timeline.html:

"March 17 -- Durham police issue a "non-testimonial" order, giving them the right to threaten legal action if an individual won't cooperate in the process of gathering evidence.

"April 10 -- Defense attorneys reveal no match found in results of the first DNA testing; February 27, 2018 at 5:45 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 521 Newer› Newest»

Sunday, February 4, 2018

Crystal Mangum's Motion for Release on Recognizance Pending Habeas Petition Ruling

521 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me