justice4nifong: Harr's humble, yet brilliant opinion -- Daniel Meier: Expert or quid pro quo?

Thursday, March 1, 2018

Harr's humble, yet brilliant opinion -- Daniel Meier: Expert or quid pro quo?

317 comments:

1 – 200 of 317 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: Sidney's blog post titled Sidney's humble yet brilliant opinion.

Sidney again manifests his delusional megalomania.

A medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training, who never achieved medical board specialty certification, who spent most of a truncated post medical school career filing and losing frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits rather than actually practicing medicine, is anything but brilliant.

An individual who repeatedly files the same frivolous non meritorious lawsuit three times is anything but brilliant.

With regard to his frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits against Duke, Sidney has claimed that Duke conspired to discriminate against him because of his support of Nifong and Nifong's wrongful prosecution of the innocent Lacrosse defendants, has claimed that officials at Duke read letters he sent him about his attendance at the Breyer event and then conspired to discriminate against him, then admitted he had no evidence that anyone in power at Duke ever read his letters, then said any sensibe individual would still conclude he had been discriminated against, that was no flash of brilliance but a flash in the pan.; March 2, 2018 at 2:35 AM
Anonymous said...: In his screed Sidney rails about Daniel Meier's lack of credentials as an expert attorney.

Sidney Harr has passed himself off as having a brilliant grasp of the law. I say again, his grasp of the law consists of filing and losing frivolous non meritorious lawsuits.

His grasp of the law also includes his advocacy for Mike Nifong, calling him a decent, honorable minister of justice when he wrongfully prosecuted the Duke defendants for rape without probable cause. He has claimed Nifong did not conceal exculpatory evidence from the defendants in that case. He has claimed the evidence was not exculpatory. He has repeatedly asserted, via his claims that no one ever proved Crystal lied about being raped, that no one ever proved the Lacrosse defendants were innocent, that the Lacrosse defendants should have been presumed guilty. He has tried to sue DA Lorin Freeman to force her to intervene in the Reginald Daye murder case when she had no authority to do so on what he called the ground that Crystal had become her constituent when Crystal had been incarcerated in a prison in her district.

He cites his status as a "retired physician". He sets himself as a medical expert by proclaiming what the cause of Reginald Daye's death was, by proclaiming that Clay Nichols' autopsy was fraudulent. I repeat he is a medical school graduate who was never accepted into medical residency training, who never achieved medical specialty board certification and who spent his truncated post medical school career doing things other than rendering care to others.

His wacko-lyte Kenhyderal has cited Matthew 7:3, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Well, when Sidney puts down Daniel Meier he should consider that verse.

Maybe Walt or A Lawyer would comment. Via this latest screed did Sidney open himself up to a libel suit. His claim was that the newspaper article he cited was quid pro quo, some kind of reward for Daniel Meier sabotaging Crystal's defense when it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt that she murdered Reginald Daye.; March 2, 2018 at 2:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney, I issue to you the challenge I have issued to your wacko-lyte Kenny:

PROVE PROVE PROVE PROVE PROVE PROVE PROVE PROVE PROVE PROVE PROVE that Crystal had been raped.

Can you come up with something better than what Kenny came up with, he does not need proof because he trusts Crystal, which translates to, convict the Lacrosse defendants solely on the word of Crystal.

The relevance is, you yourself have maintained that Crystal was convicted on trumped up murder charges in retaliation for accusing people whom Kenny described as "scions of privilege" of raping her.

So PROVE she had been raped by said "scions of privilege". Until and unless you do PROVE, you have no case.; March 2, 2018 at 4:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr, I offer you another opportunity to show how brilliant you are not.

I stand my ground that you have posted that the DNA found on Crystal was not exculpatory evidence for the defendants.

I remind you again of the following: the affidavit for probable cause described a rape in which the perpetrators deposited their DNA on Crystal; Crystal's police statement described a rape in which the perpetrators deposited their DNA on Crystal; the NTO requiring all Caucasian(William Cohan's description) Lacrosse players to give samples for DNA analysis said the DNA found on Crystal would identify the perpetrators and exonerate the innocent; the DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of the men Nifong had indicted. So why did it not exonerate them? Why was it not exculpatory?

I remind you that NC law required Nifong to turn over over a report of the results of the testing of the material obtained via the NTO to the subjects of the NTO as soon as he had the report. Nifong turned over thousands of pages of raw data sans report months after he had the report, and he turned it over not voluntarily but in response to a judge's order. So how was he in compliance with NC law by failing to turn over a report which exonerated the men he wanted to prosecute as soon as he had it.

How did that show he did not intend to conceal the results, in view of Brian Meehan's testimony under oath that he and Nifong had agreed not to turn over those results to the defense. The only results they did turn over is that there was no DNA matching the DNA of the accused. Do you deny that those results were, in and of themselves exculpatory? Nifong should have dismissed all charges then and there. He did not. How is that the act of a decent, honorable minister of justice? It wasn't. It was the act of a corrupt prosecutor who was out to get convictions regardless of whether or not the defendants were guilty.

Finally, I refer again to the NTO obtained by the Durham office, the affidavit for probable cause, Crystal's police statement. How could any honest honorable DA claim, in the face of those documents claim he did not realize the evidence was exculpatory?

The relevance: you claim Crystal was convicted on trumped up murder charges because she accuse "scions of privilege" who had raped her of rape. The evidence shows that the so called "scions of privilege" DID NOT rape her. And as Mrs Rae Evans said she considered Crystal, herself as a victim, that AG Cooper decided not to charge her with filing a false police report, that no one ever took legal action against her over her false rape allegations, there is no evidence there ever was a vendetta against Crystal?; March 2, 2018 at 5:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

More documentation that Brilliance Thy Name IS NOT Sidney Harr:

Regarding your frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits against Duke, and I stand my ground on this, when challenged to prove you were the victim of discrimination your response was, what else could it have been.

If you were truly brilliant you would realize that, in any venue or forum, you make your case by proving, this is what it is. Saying, what else could it be is saying your opponent has to disprove your allegation. It does not work that way.

In the Duke Rape hoax you repeatedly say, no one proved Crystal lied about being raped, that the Lacrosse players never proved themselves innocent, via which you are saying that the Lacrosse players should have been presumed guilty. You ignore a fundamental part of our justice system, the obligation to prove is upon the prosecution, the prosecution has an obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime happened and that the accused committed the crime.

That you willfully ignore that in the case of the innocent, falsely accused, wrongfully prosecuted Lacrosse defendants, shows you are anything but brilliant. Like your wacko-lyte Kenny you are a guilt presuming racist.

Each and every time you refer to Crystal as the "victim/accuser" in the "Duke Rape Case", you ARE proclaiming the Lacrosse defendants are guilty.; March 2, 2018 at 6:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

Your case against Daniel Meier and the newspapers is, what else could it be but a quid pro quo situation.

You offered no factual proof that it was a quid pro quo situation.

You persist in maintaining the attitude, that when you make an allegation, if no one can prove your allegation is false, then it must be accepted as true.

Yet more documentation that Brilliance, thy name IS NOT Sidney Harr.; March 2, 2018 at 6:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Isn't it about time for Sidney's wacko-lyte Kenny to pop in to say someone is making ad hominem attacks against distinguished retired physician Sidney Harr who is fighting for justice.

If and when that happens it would be documentation of, Brilliance, thy name IS NOT Kenhuderal.; March 2, 2018 at 6:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

You willfully ignore your own blog entry, Wednesday, January 10, 2018, proclaiming the unproven as fact, or something like that.

You make a habit of proclaiming the unproven as fact.

That you can not follow your own advice is documentation of, Brilliance thy name IS NOT Sidney Harr.; March 2, 2018 at 6:09 AM
A Reasonable Man said...: Oh Sid -- We get it -- you don't like Daniel Meier.

Daniel Meier has an excellent reputation in Durham and surrounding areas as a skilled litigator and knowledgeable attorney.

He has his JD from the UNC School of Law, MS in both Health and Business Administration from UAB and Bachelor of Business Administration, Finance, from Notre Dame.

What about his background should not qualify him as expert?

You should have saved all your effort for generating a blog entry on Crystal Mangum's failed appeal.; March 2, 2018 at 9:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

You advocate for Nifong as a decent honorable minister of justice. The facts show he was one of the most corrupt in US Judicial history. The facts are he knowingly prosecuted innocent men for a crime which never happened, and he had information at the time he sought indictments against them that they could not have perpetrated the crime which had been alleged.

You repeat that no one ever proved Crystal had lied about being raped. You say that no one proved the Lacrosse players were innocent. You are saying via those statements that the Lacrrosse players should have been presumed guilty.

It is an attitude similar to the attitude manifested by those racists had persecuted the Scottsboro Boys, who ignored facts and just believed a pair of false accusers, and it has been shown definitively Crystal was a false accuser.

Like your wacko-lyte Kenny, you are just as racist as the persecutors of the Scottsboro boys.

That ind of racism is not characteristic of brilliance. I say again, Brilliance, thy name OS NOT Sidney Harr.; March 2, 2018 at 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr resents people who are better off and more accomplished than he is, especially of they are caucasian.; March 2, 2018 at 11:28 AM
A Reasonable Man said...: Mike Nifong graduated from the same law school (UNC School of Law) as Daniel Meier.

Mike Nifong does not have any master's degrees, and his undergraduate degree is also from UNC.

UNC currently has a US News and World Report ranking of #30.

Notre Dame currently has a ranking of #18.

So an objective source indicates that Daniel Meier attending a better university for his undergraduate degree, has a better education than Mike Nifong in regards to graduate degrees, and has the same education WRT his JD.

In light of this, do you consider Mike Nifong an expert when it comes to matters of law?; March 2, 2018 at 12:34 PM
Anonymous said...: I say yet again, Brilliance thy name IS NOT Sidney Harr.; March 2, 2018 at 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

How would you respond to a libel suit?

You can harp on the so called "fraudulent autopsy report". I believe you would need expert testimony to establish the report is fraudulent and as you have never done an autopsy in your life.

You can claim that Crystal had been raped by members of the Duke Lacrosse team, that Crystal had been convicted on trumped murder charges, but that would require expert legal testimony, and you are not capable of providing expert legal testimony considering your record in legal endeavors, a record of 100% failure. and it has been established by the AG's thorough investigation that the alleged rape never happened. You can try what you tried once with me that the AG never did any investigation, but the AG's report describing the investigation is a part of the public record and you do not have the credentials to discredit it.

You have alleged that Mr. Meier deliberately refused to adequately represent his client because he wanted to protect Duke from liability for Reginald Daye's death. Again, to establish that Duke would have been at risk of civil liability, form nalpractice, would require expert medical testimony and, again, considering your track record medical school, you do not qualify as a Medical expert. Even if Duke had civil liability, and I am offering an opinion based on familiarization training I have received in my medical career, a murder conviction would not have shielded Duke from civil liability if malpractice actually perpetrated medical malpractice. And as Duke would not have been shielded from civil liability by Crystal's murder conviction, that shoots down your argument that the Jury members who had connections to Duke would have been there to shield Duke from civil liability.

So where do you get that your screed about Daniel Meier is brilliant? Out of your deluded megalomaniacal imagination, that's where.; March 2, 2018 at 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...: How long before Kenny says that since Meier is ignoring this, it must be true, because he knows Meier monitors this blog.; March 2, 2018 at 3:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney said:

"This much is crystal clear."

Crystal Mangum is guilty...; March 2, 2018 at 4:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney, the other hypocrisy in this screed is that you call yourself humble.

What you have repeatedly manifested in your blog is that you are anything but humble.

In your lawsuits against Duke you claim Duke singled you out for discrimination basically because what you are, a supporter of Mike Nifong. No one would single you out for discrimination because of your support of Mike Nifong, which is a series of distortions and misrepresentations.

You claimed WRAL stalked you because of who you were, your evidence another iteration of, what else coul it be.

Consider all the times you have said that Crystal would never go to trial if you had anything to say about it. You said a lot about it and she still went to trial.

You bragged you would humiliate the State Bar when it called you out on practicing law without a license. Then when the State Bar humiliated you, you claimed you were just trash talking.

Last but certainly not least, you have repeatedly mentioned your status as a retired physician an how it gave you your insight into themurder of Reginald Daye by Crystal Mangum. You spent most of your Post Medical Career doing things other than practicing medicine and learning about your impression.

What you call your humility is but another manifestation of your delusional megalomania.; March 3, 2018 at 2:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney, the other hypocrisy in this screed is that you call yourself humble.

What you have repeatedly manifested in your blog is that you are anything but humble.

In your lawsuits against Duke you claim Duke singled you out for discrimination basically because what you are, a supporter of Mike Nifong. No one would single you out for discrimination because of your support of Mike Nifong, which is a series of distortions and misrepresentations.

You claimed WRAL stalked you because of who you were, your evidence another iteration of, what else coul it be.

Consider all the times you have said that Crystal would never go to trial if you had anything to say about it. You said a lot about it and she still went to trial.

You bragged you would humiliate the State Bar when it called you out on practicing law without a license. Then when the State Bar humiliated you, you claimed you were just trash talking.

Last but certainly not least, you have repeatedly mentioned your status as a retired physician an how it gave you your insight into themurder of Reginald Daye by Crystal Mangum. You spent most of your Post Medical Career doing things other than practicing medicine and learning about your impression.

What you call your humility is but another manifestation of your delusional megalomania.

March 3, 2018 at 2:25 AM

Anony, in all fairness, what I referenced with regards to the word "humble" was my opinion, and not me personally... although I would say that I am far from being a braggart.

There is no doubt that I have made miscalculations in the past... my prognostication record being far from perfect. But my predictions were based largely upon those in government and the press being reasonable and possessing at least a scintilla of integrity. Obviously, I was wrong about that.; March 3, 2018 at 4:10 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney said:

"This much is crystal clear."

Crystal Mangum is guilty...

March 2, 2018 at 4:21 PM

True. Crystal Mangum is guilty of living in North Carolina while black.; March 3, 2018 at 4:12 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr:

How would you respond to a libel suit?

You can harp on the so called "fraudulent autopsy report". I believe you would need expert testimony to establish the report is fraudulent and as you have never done an autopsy in your life.

You can claim that Crystal had been raped by members of the Duke Lacrosse team, that Crystal had been convicted on trumped murder charges, but that would require expert legal testimony, and you are not capable of providing expert legal testimony considering your record in legal endeavors, a record of 100% failure. and it has been established by the AG's thorough investigation that the alleged rape never happened. You can try what you tried once with me that the AG never did any investigation, but the AG's report describing the investigation is a part of the public record and you do not have the credentials to discredit it.

You have alleged that Mr. Meier deliberately refused to adequately represent his client because he wanted to protect Duke from liability for Reginald Daye's death. Again, to establish that Duke would have been at risk of civil liability, form nalpractice, would require expert medical testimony and, again, considering your track record medical school, you do not qualify as a Medical expert. Even if Duke had civil liability, and I am offering an opinion based on familiarization training I have received in my medical career, a murder conviction would not have shielded Duke from civil liability if malpractice actually perpetrated medical malpractice. And as Duke would not have been shielded from civil liability by Crystal's murder conviction, that shoots down your argument that the Jury members who had connections to Duke would have been there to shield Duke from civil liability.

So where do you get that your screed about Daniel Meier is brilliant? Out of your deluded megalomaniacal imagination, that's where.

March 2, 2018 at 3:08 PM

Anony, I would respond to a libel suit with an absolute defense... the truth.

As far as Dr. Nichols' autopsy report goes, Dr. Christena L. Roberts, a forensic pathologist, pointed out problems and failures with the autopsy report... including his procedural failure to document findings and pertinent non-findings with photographs. She also noted discrepancies of the autopsy report with the operative report... having no explanation for them. Even her agreeing with the Nichols' conclusion that Daye died secondary to complications of the stab wound was tepid and with caveats.

As far as the Duke Lacrosse incident, I have made it clear that I believe that Mangum was sexually assaulted. Using the term "rape" is complicated by legal definitions. Keep in mind that there has been on evidence or proof to contradict her allegations of being sexually assaulted.

Regarding Duke's medical liability in Daye's death, Meier undermined his client and assured that she would not be acquitted by having Duke University employees as jurors. For example, had Mangum been acquitted, that would indicate that the unanimous verdict included the Duke jurors. Don't think that Duke University would hesitate to retaliate against them. That's the most evident and extreme way in which Meier sold out his client.

Consider yourself elucidated.; March 3, 2018 at 4:25 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Reasonable Man said...
Mike Nifong graduated from the same law school (UNC School of Law) as Daniel Meier.

Mike Nifong does not have any master's degrees, and his undergraduate degree is also from UNC.

UNC currently has a US News and World Report ranking of #30.

Notre Dame currently has a ranking of #18.

So an objective source indicates that Daniel Meier attending a better university for his undergraduate degree, has a better education than Mike Nifong in regards to graduate degrees, and has the same education WRT his JD.

In light of this, do you consider Mike Nifong an expert when it comes to matters of law?

March 2, 2018 at 12:34 PM

Hey, A Reasonable Man.

In a Nifong v. Meier comparison, I would definitely give the advantage by far to Nifong as regards being a legal expert. This I would base in large measure on his far greater years of professional experience. Though formal education is important, it is the education one gets from years of experience that helps define one as an expert.

It is my belief, though I am not absolutely sure, that Mangum's murder case was the first murder case in which Meier was the lead defense attorney. His legal experience is lacking when compared with many other criminal attorneys in the state.

What also sets Nifong apart from Meier and many other NC attorneys is that he was tabbed to step in as Durham County District Attorney by the governor. Surely, the governor would not have selected Nifong for that important position if he was inept, inexperienced, and incompetent.

Consider yourself enlightened.; March 3, 2018 at 4:36 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr resents people who are better off and more accomplished than he is, especially of they are caucasian.

March 2, 2018 at 11:28 AM

Hah! Shirley you jest. I am not a resentful-bearing person. I applaud achievements made by others, not scorn or belittle them.

And, you're playing the race card when it wasn't even dealt!; March 3, 2018 at 4:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"

Anony, I would respond to a libel suit with an absolute defense... the truth.

As far as Dr. Nichols' autopsy report goes, Dr. Christena L. Roberts, a forensic pathologist, pointed out problems and failures with the autopsy report... including his procedural failure to document findings and pertinent non-findings with photographs. She also noted discrepancies of the autopsy report with the operative report... having no explanation for them. Even her agreeing with the Nichols' conclusion that Daye died secondary to complications of the stab wound was tepid and with caveats.

As far as the Duke Lacrosse incident, I have made it clear that I believe that Mangum was sexually assaulted. Using the term "rape" is complicated by legal definitions. Keep in mind that there has been on evidence or proof to contradict her allegations of being sexually assaulted.

Regarding Duke's medical liability in Daye's death, Meier undermined his client and assured that she would not be acquitted by having Duke University employees as jurors. For example, had Mangum been acquitted, that would indicate that the unanimous verdict included the Duke jurors. Don't think that Duke University would hesitate to retaliate against them. That's the most evident and extreme way in which Meier sold out his client."

HAH!!!

You do not know the truth. You know only your delusional megalomania, and. as has been shown on many previous occasions that will not fly in court.; March 3, 2018 at 4:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Hey, A Reasonable Man.

In a Nifong v. Meier comparison, I would definitely give the advantage by far to Nifong as regards being a legal expert. This I would base in large measure on his far greater years of professional experience. Though formal education is important, it is the education one gets from years of experience that helps define one as an expert.

It is my belief, though I am not absolutely sure, that Mangum's murder case was the first murder case in which Meier was the lead defense attorney. His legal experience is lacking when compared with many other criminal attorneys in the state.

What also sets Nifong apart from Meier and many other NC attorneys is that he was tabbed to step in as Durham County District Attorney by the governor. Surely, the governor would not have selected Nifong for that important position if he was inept, inexperienced, and incompetent."

And after Nifong was exposed as a thoroughly corrupt prosecutor who prosecuted and tried, via illegal and unethical methods to convict innocent men of a crime which never happened, the Governor went on record that his appointment of Nifong was the worst appointment he ever made, which says Nifong was not at all competent.

And you do not realize that because you do not like truths which do not support your guilt presuming racism.; March 3, 2018 at 4:50 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous A Reasonable Man said...
Oh Sid -- We get it -- you don't like Daniel Meier.

Daniel Meier has an excellent reputation in Durham and surrounding areas as a skilled litigator and knowledgeable attorney.

He has his JD from the UNC School of Law, MS in both Health and Business Administration from UAB and Bachelor of Business Administration, Finance, from Notre Dame.

What about his background should not qualify him as expert?

You should have saved all your effort for generating a blog entry on Crystal Mangum's failed appeal.

March 2, 2018 at 9:40 AM

A Reasonable Man, I don't see where you get that I don't like Meier. I met him once in the Durham Justice Center and he seemed like a pretty nice guy. However, I deplore what he did by selling out his client Mangum. I do not believe that he is intrinsically evil, but I believe his turncoat representation of Mangum belies serious faults in his character... a lack of integrity, for example.

As far as his formal education background at Notre Dame goes, this accomplishment is somewhat impressive, but that does not make him an expert in business or in law. How many years of business experience has he had?

You, as well as the McClatchy Newspapers, set the bar pretty low for being an "expert." As far as the law goes, considering his experience, I would say that Meier is a novice when it comes to criminal law.; March 3, 2018 at 4:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr resents people who are better off and more accomplished than he is, especially of they are caucasian.

March 2, 2018 at 11:28 AM"

"Hah! Shirley you jest. I am not a resentful-bearing person. I applaud achievements made by others, not scorn or belittle them.

You scorn and belittle people like Dr. Nichols, Dr. Roberts, Daniel Meier, AG Cooper, the innocent Duke Lacrosse defendants, their families, all of whom are caucasian and all of whom ARE more accomplished and better off than you are.

"And, you're playing the race card when it wasn't even dealt!"

Wrong. You have dealt the race card each and every time you have complained, without evidence(the only thing you have offered as evidence is, what else could it be) that you were discriminated against because you are black. Do not complain when someone trumps the race card YOU have dealt.; March 3, 2018 at 4:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"
A Reasonable Man, I don't see where you get that I don't like Meier. I met him once in the Durham Justice Center and he seemed like a pretty nice guy. However, I deplore what he did by selling out his client Mangum. I do not believe that he is intrinsically evil, but I believe his turncoat representation of Mangum belies serious faults in his character... a lack of integrity, for example.

As far as his formal education background at Notre Dame goes, this accomplishment is somewhat impressive, but that does not make him an expert in business or in law. How many years of business experience has he had?

You, as well as the McClatchy Newspapers, set the bar pretty low for being an "expert." As far as the law goes, considering his experience, I would say that Meier is a novice when it comes to criminal law."

Your latest screed on Daniel Meier saying his inclusion with a group of legal experts was an attempt to have him inappropriately described as a legal expert, you multiple accusations that he deliberately sabotaged Crystal's defense add up to res ipsa loquitur evidence that you do not like Daniel Meier.

Just how incredibly stupid are you that you think you can just deny the obvious and get away with it?; March 3, 2018 at 4:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"As far as Dr. Nichols' autopsy report goes, Dr. Christena L. Roberts, a forensic pathologist, pointed out problems and failures with the autopsy report... including his procedural failure to document findings and pertinent non-findings with photographs. She also noted discrepancies of the autopsy report with the operative report... having no explanation for them. Even her agreeing with the Nichols' conclusion that Daye died secondary to complications of the stab wound was tepid and with caveats."

Does not establish that the autopsy was deliberately fraudulent. That is the key. Fraudulent means Dr. Nichols willfully tried to deceive the court.

On the other hand you willfully try to deceive the world that you are an experienced, competent retired physician. Your record, as documented in the Indy Weekly, and your concession that you were never accepted into residency training and never achieved board certification shows you are not.; March 3, 2018 at 5:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"It is my belief, though I am not absolutely sure, that Mangum's murder case was the first murder case in which Meier was the lead defense attorney. His legal experience is lacking when compared with many other criminal attorneys in the state."

You forgot to admit that Daniel Meier got involved in Crystal's defense after your interference, one specifically instance of which was your publication of confidential information Crystal revealed to you, forced her other counsel off the case.; March 3, 2018 at 5:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"As far as his formal education background at Notre Dame goes, this accomplishment is somewhat impressive, but that does not make him an expert in business or in law. How many years of business experience has he had?"

How come you claim you are a competent experienced retired physician when you never were accepted into residency training, when you never achieved medical specialty board certification, when you spent most of your truncated post medical career filing and losing frivolous non meritorious lawsuits, and you think you are so competent and experienced that your opinions trump those of real trained experienced physicians.

Why do you think you are some kind of legal eagle in the wake of your string of frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits which have all been dismissed?; March 3, 2018 at 5:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"You, as well as the McClatchy Newspapers, set the bar pretty low for being an "expert." As far as the law goes, considering his experience, I would say that Meier is a novice when it comes to criminal law."

How much do you know about criminal law. Judging from your multiple boasts that the state would never take Crystal to trial for the murder of Reginald Daye, your boasts that the state did not have a case, your multiple boasts that Crystal's release was imminent(she is still incarcerated, isn't she) what makes you knowledgeable about criminal law.

I also cite claims you have made that Nifong's concealment of obviously exculpatory evidence was not ethical or illegal, that the evidence was not exculpatory.

How about your repeated statements that no one ever proved Crystal lied, that no one proved the Lacrosse defendants were innocent, manifesting an ignorance of a fundamental part of the US legal system, that it is the prosecutor's obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were guilty, meaning that Nifong's obligation in the Duke case was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Crystal told the truth.; March 3, 2018 at 5:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Anony, in all fairness, what I referenced with regards to the word "humble" was my opinion, and not me personally... although I would say that I am far from being a braggart."

Your last screed against Daniel Meier was anything but humble. And as you have bragged about how Crystal would never be convicted of murder if you had anything to say aout it(she was convicted of murder in spite of your saying a lot about it) shows you are a braggart. Your predictions you would prevail in your multiple frivolous non meritorious lawsuits show you are a braggart.

"There is no doubt that I have made miscalculations in the past... my prognostication record being far from perfect. But my predictions were based largely upon those in government and the press being reasonable and possessing at least a scintilla of integrity. Obviously, I was wrong about that."

What you are wrong about was that you believed you showed you were reasonable and you showed integrity when you tried to get your favorite false rape accuser/victimizer/favorite murderess a pass for her crines.; March 3, 2018 at 5:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"As far as the Duke Lacrosse incident, I have made it clear that I believe that Mangum was sexually assaulted."

That you have stated on multiple occasions that Crystal ALWAYS insisted she had been raped, says you did believe she had been RAPED.

"Using the term 'rape' is complicated by legal definitions."

An attempt to defend your ridiculous statement that Nifong showed he was decent minister of justice when he dropped the rape charges. A decent honorable minister of justice would have dropped all the charges since what Crystal had originally alleged was a rape. That was a cynical attempt by Nifong to convict the defendants of a felony sex crime by excluding the exculpatory DNA evidence.

"Keep in mind that there has been on evidence or proof to contradict her allegations of being sexually assaulted."

Why are you incapable of keeping in mind that there had to be evidence which showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Crystal had been raped. You have offered no evidence that Crystal had been raped. You are presuming guilt. I ask again, why do you ignore the requirement that the accused be presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You again document you are no legal expert, that you have no basis to decide whether or not Daniel Meier is a legal expert.; March 3, 2018 at 6:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"Regarding Duke's medical liability in Daye's death, Meier undermined his client and assured that she would not be acquitted by having Duke University employees as jurors. For example, had Mangum been acquitted, that would indicate that the unanimous verdict included the Duke jurors. Don't think that Duke University would hesitate to retaliate against them. That's the most evident and extreme way in which Meier sold out his client."

What I do not hesitate to think is that Duke WOULD NOT retaliate against them if Crystal had been acquitted. Your premise is that a Murder conviction of Crystal would shield Duke from civil liability. A criminal conviction against the defendant would not have shielded Duke against civil liability if there actually been malpractice. And as you are no expert medical witness considering your medical background, or, rather, your lack thereof. To establish medical malpractice there must be expert witnesses.

And your claim that Duke would retaliate is based on your multiple frivolous lawsuits against Duke alleging discrimination against you, or rather your one frivolous lawsuit which you refiled twice after it had been dismissed. What you alleged is that you sent letters to the president of Duke and to the dean of the Duke Law School informing them that you intended to attend the Breyer event. You alleged that after those letters were read that Duke officials conspired to discriminate against you. You subsequently admitted you had no hard evidence that anyone in power ever read the letters, meaning that you had no evidence that anyone in poser knew you were going to be at the Breyer event. But then you said that a reasonable man would surmise that Duke did conspire to discriminate against you, which brings to mind you contention that no one proved Crystal had ever lied about being raped. Your attitude towards your lawsuits is that you make your allegations and the defendant is obligated to disprove them. In a criminal case, I again remind you, the prosecution is obligated to prove the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a plaintiff has to prove his allegation, not beyond a reasonable doubt but by a preponderance of evidence. If you have no evidence that anyone in power at Duke knew that you would be at the Breyer event, then how could you have made your case that officials at Duke conspired to discriminate against you.

It is but more evidence that you are no legal expert.; March 3, 2018 at 6:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

One more for the road:

Answer yes or know:

Considering a person making a judgement whether or not Daniel Meier was a legal expert, and you are such a person, via you latest screed, should that person himself be a legal expert?; March 3, 2018 at 6:24 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous misspoke and posed a virtually incomprehensible polar question, in the convoluted manner characteristic of his posts, and said: " Answer yes or know: Considering a person making a judgement whether or not Daniel Meier was a legal expert, and you are such a person, via you latest screed, should that person himself be a legal" expert?....................................... You're misusing know and via in an obscure question that demands, at the very least, the qualifier of "it depends"; March 3, 2018 at 9:59 AM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Is there some way we can get you to stop whining?; March 3, 2018 at 10:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal'slarest garbage:

"Dr. Anonymous misspoke and posed a virtually incomprehensible polar question, in the convoluted manner characteristic of his posts, and said: " Answer yes or know: Considering a person making a judgement whether or not Daniel Meier was a legal expert, and you are such a person, via you latest screed, should that person himself be a legal" expert?....................................... You're misusing know and via in an obscure question that demands, at the very least, the qualifier of "it depends"

Yes I said know when I meant no.

That you find something incomprehensible is not surprising.You have never found anything comprehensible which does not mesh with your guilt presuming racism. You, however have spouted things reprehensible, e.g. spouting off that innocent men raped Crystal in the face of zero evidence said rape ever happened, and you have conceded you can offer no evidence the alleged rape ever happened.

So here is the correction to the questionI put to Sidney: "Answer yes or no: Considering a person making a judgement whether or not Daniel Meier was a legal expert, and you are such a person, via you latest screed, should that person himself be a legal" expert?"

Now there is nothing equivocal about it, but you will still find it incomprehensible because it does not mesh with your racist guilt presumption.

So answer this question yourself. As Sidney did make a judgment that Daniel Meier did not qualify as a legal expert, what qualifies Sidney to make such a judgment.

What qualifies you to make such judgments such as, whether or not malpractice happened in the Reginald Daye murder. To make such a judgment in court, and that is the only venue which matters, you would have to show you are a medical expert. As you have never performed surgery on anyone(and Sidney never has), and you have never performed an autopsy(and Sidney never has), and you have never performed an intubation(Sidney has claimed to have done so but has never said how many-I have done dozens), what qualifies you to make judgments which are actually expert medical opinions?

You say you have not fallen off the turnip truck. You have never been able to climb up on the Turnip Truck in the first place.; March 3, 2018 at 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, here is some more clarification, meaning I re-phrase:

Via his latest screed, Sidney made a judgment that Daniel Meier did not qualify as a legal expert. What qualifies Sidney to make such a judgment?

While we are on the topic of, what qualifies, what qualifies no training, minimal experience Sidney to render what are expert medical opinions?; March 3, 2018 at 10:46 AM
A Reasonable Man said...: Sid - Daniel Meier has been practicing law for over 15 years. In those 15 years h e has established his own law firm. What did Nifong do in his first 15 years practicing law?
How many years do you feel on has to practice in their chosen field (say, medicine ) before they are considered expert?; March 3, 2018 at 10:54 AM
Anonymous said...: For a reasonable man:

I did some research on Sidney. He graduated from Medical School in 1974. He retired from practicing medicine in 1991. He has conceded he was never accepted into residency training and never achieved any specialty board certification.

Then there is this, with which you may already be familiar, https://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/is-sidney-harrs-crusade-for-crystal-mangum-backfiring/Content?oid=3700005, which is my source that he spent his post medical school career filing and losing frivolous, non meritorious lawsuits rather than practicing medicine.

I recall Sidney calling that piece a hatchet job. I believe the possibility of a libel suit to Sidney. I remember Sidney's response as, he thought the author was really a nice guy and that was why he decided not to sue.; March 3, 2018 at 11:15 AM
kenhyderal said...: Too bad we can't do any research on his anonymous, race obsessed, critic whom I call Dr. Anonymous?; March 3, 2018 at 1:17 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "While we are on the topic of, what qualifies, what qualifies no training, minimal experience Sidney to render what are expert medical opinions?"................................What specific, expert medical, opinion are you saying Dr. Harr rendered?; March 3, 2018 at 1:34 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ A Reasonable Man. As a lay person who watched the Trial on YouTube, I believe Daniel Meier did a pathetic job of defending Crystal. His request for time to research the case was unfairly denied so he came in ill-prepared to counter the aggressive prosecution, far beyond what the case demanded. The State, with Crystal incarcerated under a nearly impossible bail had months and months to prepare their carefully crafted case whereas Meier had only days. He treated Crystal contemptuously and like the key witness Pathologist Nicholls he shied away from any implication whatsoever of Duke in Daye's death. He badgered Crystal not to put Dr. Roberts on the stand. Although she reluctantly concurred with disgraced Nichols cause of death, under oath she would of been forced to disclose Duke's critical role in Daye's death; March 3, 2018 at 1:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Too bad we can't do any research on his anonymous, race obsessed, critic whom I call Dr. Anonymous?"

Kenny STEW STEW STEW STEW STEW STEW and STEW again.; March 3, 2018 at 1:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "While we are on the topic of, what qualifies, what qualifies no training, minimal experience Sidney to render what are expert medical opinions?"................................What specific, expert medical, opinion are you saying Dr. Harr rendered?"

On many occasions Sidney has posted that Reginald Daye died from Medical Malpractice not from the stab wound.

That kind of opinion requires medical expertise to be valid, and medical expertise Sidney as never had.; March 3, 2018 at 1:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"@ A Reasonable Man. As a lay person who watched the Trial on YouTube, I believe Daniel Meier did a pathetic job of defending Crystal."

That is the kind of statement which implies you have legal expertise. Show us your credentials as a legal expert.

"His request for time to research the case was unfairly denied so he came in ill-prepared to counter the aggressive prosecution, far beyond what the case demanded. The State, with Crystal incarcerated under a nearly impossible bail had months and months to prepare their carefully crafted case whereas Meier had only days."

Meier had a short time as Crystal's court appointed counsel because Sidney's interference in the case caused her earlier counsel to withdraw from the case. Before that she rejected a court appointed counsel. That has something in common with Charles Manson's flashing a newspaper at his trial with a headline saying Nixon believed him guilty, and then expecting a mistrial from it. There are safeguards in place to protect the rights of the accused. When the defendant compromises those safeguards, he/she does not get any consideration for the violation of those safeguards. One does not get recognized for heroism for shooting oneself in the foot.

"He treated Crystal contemptuously and like the key witness Pathologist Nicholls he shied away from any implication whatsoever of Duke in Daye's death."

A statement from a man who presumes he has medical expertise, that he is capable of determining whether or not Duke caused Reginald Daye's death. In other words, no clinical training, no clinical experience Kenny is trying to pass himself off as an expert witness. So, Kenny what credentials do you have to render a valid opinion in this manner.

"He badgered Crystal not to put Dr. Roberts on the stand. Although she reluctantly concurred with disgraced Nichols cause of death, under oath she would of been forced to disclose Duke's critical role in Daye's death."

I stand my ground on this: Kenny once said he would have put Dr. Roberts on the stand and then treat her as a hostile witness, which would be screaming to the Jury, OUR EXPERT WITNESS AGREES WITH THE PROSECUTION'S EXPERT WITNESS. And, Kenny, Although you have no credentials to form an expert opinion as to what caused Reginad Daye's death, you are again trying to step up as a medical expert. Your statement has no legal weight.; March 3, 2018 at 2:14 PM
Anonymous said...: "That kind of opinion requires medical expertise to be valid, and medical expertise Sidney as never had" from March 3, 2018 at 1:58 PM should have been That kind of opinion requires medical expertise to be valid, and medical expertise Sidney has never had.

Yes I have a tendency to typos.; March 3, 2018 at 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, has anyone with an MD degree or a Law degree ever posted anything here which supports your views? If so, why don't you copy and paste the post.; March 3, 2018 at 2:21 PM
Anonymous said...: For Kenhyderal:

I read the account of Charles Manson and the Nixon headline in Vincent Bugliosise's book about the Manson trial.

The similarities between that and Crystal's situation with her counsel:

There are protections in place to safeguard the rights of the defendant. In the Manson case, Manson himself circumvented the safeguards, which meant that he could not claim, after being convicted, he had not received a fair trial.

Crystal received material from Chris Shella which was to be kept confidential between her and Chris Shella. Crystal shared the information with Sidney Harr, who made it public, thus revealing the defense strategy to the prosecution and making it impossible for Chris Shella to continue as her counsel. Crystal herself caused the delays Daniel Meier encountered. Which meant Crystal had no cause to cite the delay as a cause of an unfair trial.

So far as Crystal testifying, it was her right not to testify. When she chose to testify she did agree to submit to cross examination covering all issues. So far as Daniel Meier's poor representation of her, Crystal herself had no one to blame for her situation. She sabotaged her own defense.; March 3, 2018 at 3:10 PM
A Reasonable Man said...: @Kenhyderal, As a lay person who watched the Trial on YouTube, I believe Daniel Meier did a excellent job of defending Crystal, considering she was guilty.

With regard to his time to research the case -- blame Sid.; March 3, 2018 at 6:29 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: A-A-A-A-HAH!! Now it's all clear! I missed a February 14, 2018 issue of the Indy Week and failed to notice that Daniel Meier is running for Durham District Attorney! That's the real quid pro quo!!

Wanna bet that the McClatchy newspapers, Indy Week, and others will endorse Meier. Referring to Meier as an expert was merely to build up his reputation and make him seem more palatable as the Durham County D.A. come election time. This is his real payoff for selling out his client!!! I knew there had to be a quid pro quo... and the D.A.'s job just might be but only one of the arrangements agreed upon.

Meier will be just the kind of district attorneys that the Powers-That-Be would want to have in that office... a person without integrity and who is a team player willing to subvert justice on demand. A malleable sort -- that's Daniel Meier.

What a joke on the citizens of Durham County... allowing the best district attorney -- one of integrity and independence, Mike Nifong -- the state has ever had to be forced out of office, and possibly having a puppet maneuvered into the powerful position a decade later. This is surreal.; March 3, 2018 at 6:53 PM
Anonymous said...: https://www.meierforda.com/; March 3, 2018 at 8:58 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "On many occasions Sidney has posted that Reginald Daye died from Medical Malpractice not from the stab wound"............................You don't have to be an expert to know that is wrong. Here is the sequence: removal from life support due to brain death, due to cerebral anoxia, due to cardiac arrest, due to to oxygen deprivation, due to an errant esophageal intubation, unrecognized in a timely fashion. According to The American Society of Anesthesiologists failure to recognize an esophageal intubation in a timely fashion leading to injury or death is medical malpractice; March 3, 2018 at 9:42 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Nobody believes anything you say.; March 3, 2018 at 10:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

"A-A-A-A-HAH!! Now it's all clear! I missed a February 14, 2018 issue of the Indy Week and failed to notice that Daniel Meier is running for Durham District Attorney! That's the real quid pro quo!!"

Whatever. The Candidates for District attorney are more accomplished and more expet than the corrupt rogue prosecutor you have endorsed as a "decent, honorable minister of justice" after he tried to prosecute innocent men for a crime which never happened, using techniques of guilt presumption, undermining of their constitutional rights, intimidation of witnesses who supported their alibis, concealment of evidence which exonerated him.

"Wanna bet that the McClatchy newspapers, Indy Week, and others will endorse Meier. Referring to Meier as an expert was merely to build up his reputation and make him seem more palatable as the Durham County D.A. come election time. This is his real payoff for selling out his client!!! I knew there had to be a quid pro quo... and the D.A.'s job just might be but only one of the arrangements agreed upon."

Daniel Meieer did not sell out Crystal. You and Crystal sold out Crystal. So far as you knowing there was a quid pro quo, that is gross presumption of a fact not in evidence, not at all surprising for you. On many occasions you have shown you know less than nothing and you are following true to form here.

"Meier will be just the kind of district attorneys that the Powers-That-Be would want to have in that office... a person without integrity and who is a team player willing to subvert justice on demand. A malleable sort -- that's Daniel Meier."

No, Meier will be the kind of District Attorney who will seek the truth, not prosecute just to further his personal political agenda, who will respect the rights of the accused, and not railroad them on the basis of a lying complaining witness, and one thing you do not know is that it has been proven Crystal lied.

"What a joke on the citizens of Durham County... allowing the best district attorney -- one of integrity and independence, Mike Nifong -- the state has ever had to be forced out of office, and possibly having a puppet maneuvered into the powerful position a decade later. This is surreal."

No, this is hope for the future after such corrupt individuals like Nifong and Tracy Cline. What a joke you try to pull on the citizens of Durham. This screed shows only your frustration that just about everyone knows you are a joke you are trying to pull on Durham.

PROVE PROVE PROVE PROVE Crystal told the truth when she alleged she had been raped, rather than promulgating the lie that no one has proven she lied.; March 4, 2018 at 2:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"'Dr. Anonymous said: "On many occasions Sidney has posted that Reginald Daye died from Medical Malpractice not from the stab wound'............................"

Sidney Harr has stated on multiple occasions that Medical malpractice by Duke killed Reginald Daye, that jurors who worked for Duke were on the jury to prevent an acquittal of Crystal to shield Duke from civil liability, and I stand my ground on that-yu do know what that means, don't you?. Sidney Harr is making a statement that only someone with medical expertise can make meaningfully, and Sidney is totally lacking in medical expertise.

"You don't have to be an expert to know that is wrong. Here is the sequence: removal from life support due to brain death, due to cerebral anoxia, due to cardiac arrest, due to to oxygen deprivation, due to an errant esophageal intubation, unrecognized in a timely fashion."

What you leave out: Reginald Daye suffered a laceration of the colon because Crystal stabbed him. That led to hours of contamination of his abdominal cavity by colonic bacteria. Colonic bacteria in the colon are harmless, and beneficial is some ways. In the abdominal cavity they cause infection.

Reginald Dayes's symptoms, fever, tachycardia, disorientation were consistent with an intra abdominal infection. He had been placed at risk of an intra abdominal infection because Crystal stabbed him. What would have been malpractice in this scenario would have been to do what you HAVE advocated, assume the symptoms were due to DTs and ignore the possibility of infection.

Reginald Daye aspirated after contrast had been instilled into his stomach by an NG tube. One does not put contrast into the stomach to treat DTs. One puts contrast into the stomach before an abdominal CT scan. One does an abdominal CT scan with contrast in this scenario to evaluate for an intra abdominal infection.

The aspiration was recognized. An attempt to treat it was made. It was unsuccessful because, according to the Defense's medical expert, the vomitus obstructed the view of the airway. For an adverse medical event to be malpractice it had to be established the event was due to negligence. That takes expert medical testimony. Walt in Durham, who I greatly respect although I have not always agreed with him, is on record that he believes it was malpractice. If a lawyer were to sue Duke for Malpractice, that lawyer, even Walt, could not establish it was malpractice without expert medical testimony. I say as one with medical expertise that the event was not due to negligence.

Even if it were malpractice, and I do believe that the actual legal experts who have posted here would say, a murder conviction of Crystal would not have relieved Duke of civil liability. So much for Sidney's claim that Duke sought a murder conviction of Crystal to shield itself from civil liability.

"According to The American Society of Anesthesiologists failure to recognize an esophageal intubation in a timely fashion leading to injury or death is medical malpractice".

This reminds me of your fascination with Kilgo and his anonymous Lacrosse player, which Lacrosse player you can not show even exists, just like you can not show that Kilgo ever told you about some anonymous Lacrosse player. Just like you are trying to establish the existence of anonymous rapists at the Lacrosse party via hearsay, you are trying to establish Malpractice on the part of Duke by hearsay.

And you are adopting a Nifongian style to try to establish malpractice, namely, hear only what you want to hear and suppress the rest(acknowledgement to Simon and Garfunkel).; March 4, 2018 at 3:30 AM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 4, 2018 at 8:36 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. A. said: "One does an abdominal CT scan with contrast in this scenario to evaluate for an intra abdominal infection" .........................,No infection was ever found. Nichols, unchallenged by Meier, misled the Jury by saying Daye died "obviously some sort of infection, or some sort of other catastrophic illness". He deliberately left out the errant and fatal esophageal intubation and the primary diagnosis of impending delirium tremens that sent him to the ICU. Immaterial of what the procedure he underwent was for, it was mishandled and that's what killed him. This mishandled foreseeable and preventable problem was the real cause of death and not the stab wound inflicted on him in self defence by Crystal.; March 4, 2018 at 8:41 AM
A Reasonable Man said...: Sidney - The J4N members should pool their resources and buy some billboards. Might I suggest:

"Daniel Meier is the Anti-Nfong"

or

"Daniel Meier will never be a DA like Mike Nifong"

That should definitely influence the Durham voters.; March 4, 2018 at 12:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. A. said: "One does an abdominal CT scan with contrast in this scenario to evaluate for an intra abdominal infection" .........................,No infection was ever found."

An example of your total lack of clinical expertise. That was meaningless. At the time of the adverse event, the treating physicians did not know what was going on, the symptoms they had were consistent with an infection and they were obligated to determine whether or not an infection was present. That they did not turn up an infection is irrelevant, something which shows yet again, you are pontificating about something, about which you know nothing.

"Nichols, unchallenged by Meier, misled the Jury by saying Daye died 'obviously some sort of infection, or some sort of other catastrophic illness'"

Which is documentation that Dr. Nochols knew more about the situation than did either you or Sidney. He did not mislead the jury.

"He deliberately left out the errant and fatal esophageal intubation and the primary diagnosis of impending delirium tremens that sent him to the ICU."

Because the errant intubation the stab wound

Irrelevant because what ultimately led up to the errant intubation was caused by the stab wound Crystal inflicted on Reginald Daye, and it was not at all established that DTs was the only concern the treating physicians faced.

Immaterial of what the procedure he underwent was for, it was mishandled and that's what killed him. It was not immaterial, as the procedure would never have been necessary if Crystal had never stabbed him.

"This mishandled foreseeable and preventable problem was the real cause of death"

You mean the problem which was caused by the stab wound inflicted him by Crystal.

" and not the stab wound inflicted on him in self defence by Crystal."

Check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj88-97ESZI&t=656s:

In that video it is pointed out that the police found on Crystal that she had been beaten, ant the stab wound inflicted on Reginald Day was inflicted on his back, which indicated, in spite of Reginald Daye pulling Crystal out of the bathroom she was not subjected to a severe beating and that Reginald Daye was leaving when Crystal stabbbed him. That why her self defense allegation was not proven.; March 4, 2018 at 2:58 PM
Anonymous said...: More for Kenhyderal:

Kenny, you document how clinically incompetent you are. Complications are not absolutely foreseeable. I came across this: https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=safety-contrast#safety-side-effects:

Iodine-based Contrast Materials

"Mild reactions include:

nausea and vomiting
headache
itching
flushing
mild skin rash or hives"

Iodine-based contrast materials are what are used for abdominal ct scans done with contrast. That says the risk of aspiration is not great.

What is the risk of an intra abdominal infection following a laceration of the colon?

I found this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2590081/pdf/yjbm00088-0013.pdf:

"The determinant of primary importance for development of infection
confirmed by this study is peritoneal contamination by intestinal contents."

from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6983/table/A4476/?report=objectonly:

"Colon injuries:Risk factors for leakage/septic complications
Blood transfusion requirements
PATI > 25, and number/type of associated organ injuries
Hypotension before surgery
Preoperative metabolic acidosis
Severity and location of colon injury
Mode of injury
DEGREE OF FECAL CONTAMINATION(emphasis added).
Pre-existing medical illness
Method of colon wound management

After Reginald Daye was stabbed there was an interval between the colon laceration and the surgery, how long I really do not know. I do know he had to be transported to Duke University Medical Center, he had to be evaluated in the ER, the OR had to be set up for surgery, the anesthesiologist had to see him, all of which I estimate, based on actual experience was at least two hours, two hours in which infectious colon contents were contaminating the Abdominal cavity. My opinion, again based on actual hands on experience is that the risk of infection overwhelmingly exceeded the risk of doing an abdominal ct scan with contrast.

That no infection was ultimately found is irrelevant.

The risk of infection was there in the post operative period. The treating physicians were obligated to rule in or rule out the infection, Dts or no. I say again, the risk would have never been there had Crystal not stabbed Reginald Daye, and it was not in self defense.; March 4, 2018 at 3:02 PM
Anonymous said...: A Reasonable Man said...

"Sidney - The J4N members should pool their resources and buy some billboards. Might I suggest:

'Daniel Meier is the Anti-Nfong'

or

'Daniel Meier will never be a DA like Mike Nifong'

That should definitely influence the Durham voters."

The reaction of the Durham voters would be a loud THANK GOD!!!!; March 4, 2018 at 3:13 PM
kenhyderal said...: There was also a risk of DT's in a hospitalized person walking and talking on admission who registered a BAC of 296mg/dl, independent of the reason for his admission. The diagnosis made was impending delirium tremens and the procedure was undertaken simply to rule out a post surgical infection. When the infection was ruled out the original diagnosis was, in all probability, the correct one. Sloppy overworked Dr. Nicholls, who obviously had no recollection of the autopsy that he had signed off on and what the accompanying hospital notes actually said, went with "she stabbed him he died" and the known to be wrong "obviously some sort of infection". Because of his past censure for poor work and not wanting to have further tarnish to his reputation he doubled down on this deficient characterization. Dr. Roberts probably also not wanting to further add to her professional colleague's disgrace for the benefit of a poor marginalized person like Crystal nor raise the spectre of error and cover-up by the almighty Duke, in Dr. Harr's words, tepidly indorsed Nicholls' erroneous cause of death.; March 4, 2018 at 3:44 PM
kenhyderal said...: A Reasonable mans said: "'Daniel Meier will never be a DA like Mike Nifong'
That should definitely influence the Durham voters."....................... You might be surprised.; March 4, 2018 at 3:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"A Reasonable mans said: "'Daniel Meier will never be a DA like Mike Nifong'
That should definitely influence the Durham voters."....................... You might be surprised. "

Only if that did not get Daniel Meier elected.; March 4, 2018 at 4:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Krnhyderal:

"There was also a risk of DT's in a hospitalized person walking and talking on admission who registered a BAC of 296mg/dl, independent of the reason for his admission. The diagnosis made was impending delirium tremens and the procedure was undertaken simply to rule out a post surgical infection. When the infection was ruled out the original diagnosis was, in all probability, the correct one."

So how did that eliminate the need too evaluate for an infection at a time an intra abdominal infection was a risk? It didn't. And it does not change the fact that had Crystal not stabbed Reginald Daye there would not have been an evaluation for an infection.

"Sloppy overworked Dr. Nicholls, who obviously had no recollection of the autopsy that he had signed off on and what the accompanying hospital notes actually said, went with "she stabbed him he died" and the known to be wrong "obviously some sort of infection". Because of his past censure for poor work and not wanting to have further tarnish to his reputation he doubled down on this deficient characterization."

Please give your credentials to support your capability to make this statement authoritatively. You Can't because you haven't any. In other words, PROVE you know what you are talking about.

"Dr. Roberts probably also not wanting to further add to her professional colleague's disgrace for the benefit of a poor marginalized person like Crystal nor raise the spectre of error and cover-up by the almighty Duke, in Dr. Harr's words, tepidly indorsed Nicholls' erroneous cause of death."

Presuming facts not in evidence, something you have contrived because you can not provide any factual evidence to support your claims, just like you can not provide any factual evidence that Crystal had been raped, that kilgo's anonymous lacrosse player exisrs, that kilgo ever told you about some anonymous Lacrosse player, or that Sidney Harr knows anything about clinical medicine. Harr's words as a physician are worth less than 1/1,000,000th pre Euro Italian Lire.; March 4, 2018 at 4:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

This is the issue you willfully ignore.

In the early pre op period when Reginald Daye manifested symptoms consistent with infection, how could the treating physicians know whether or not an intra abdominal infectious process was going on without evaluating him for it.

You do seem to be saying that they should have ignored any possibility other than one which would have gotten a pass for Crystal, even if you are incapable of knowing it.

Tell us, how would you have handled the situation, how would you have eliminated infection as the cause of Reginald Daye's symptoms? What did you learn about that kind of clinical situation when you were, purportedly, on top of some turnip truck?; March 4, 2018 at 4:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, here it is again:

Reginald Daye died as a result of a complication of a procedure to evaluate for an intra abdominal infection.

Said evaluation would not have happened had Crystal never stabbed him.

So while a truncated explanation, Dr.Nichols' opinion was valid. Reginald Daye died because Crystal stabbed him, and it was not in self defense.

Come up with an explanation why Reginald Daye aspirated and vomited.

I did provide information that the risk of vomiting and aspiration after the administration of intra gastric contrast is low, but it is not zero.

What I was also saying that the risk of intra abbdominal infection was there and was greater than the risk of administering intra gastric contrast for an abdominal ct with contrast.

And I say again, the adverse event would never have happened had Crystal never stabbed him.; March 4, 2018 at 4:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

It is the opinion of someone with clinical expertise, far more than you have, far more than Sidney has, is that the adverse incident which resulted in Reginald Daye's death did not rise to the level of negligence.

That you do not care for my expertise, that is as significant as the Imperial Wizard nof the Ku Klux Klan not caring for Mr. Obama's performance as President, which is an appropriate comparison as you are guilt presuming racist with the morals of a Scottsboro persecutor.; March 4, 2018 at 6:02 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. A. said: "Reginald Daye died as a result of a complication of a procedure to evaluate for an intra abdominal infection............ YES YES YES

Said evaluation would not have happened had Crystal never stabbed him................... There is no nexus between the event that sent Daye to Hospital and his death. If the sequence leading to his death predates the evaluation for a post surgical intra-abdominal infection it does not relate back to the repaired stab wound but instead to deprivation of alcohol in a chronic alcoholic. This led him to a life threating alcohol withdrawal with impending delirium tremens. Any event that sent Daye to Hospital could of had the same sequelae eg. a broken ankle. When it was decided to rule out a post surgical infection by intubation of contrast the onus fell on the treating respiratory technician and his supervising physicians to intubate the trachea and not the esophagus and to determine if the placement was correct and if not to correct it before cardiac and cerebral anoxia causes irreparable harm. You can't get a Welch ruling out of simply being the cause of sending a victim to hospital where their prior medical history ie. chronic alcoholism and a medical error in his treatment resulted in his death. Judge Ridgeway said as much,; March 4, 2018 at 9:43 PM
kenhyderal said...: That being said Dr. Nicolls whether deliberately or unknowingly failed to provide a complete and accurate cause of death. You can't legally leave out all the intervening occurrences. The charge of murder was contingent on the cause of death.; March 4, 2018 at 9:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Part 1:

"Dr. A. said: "Reginald Daye died as a result of a complication of a procedure to evaluate for an intra abdominal infection............ YES YES YES

Said evaluation would not have happened had Crystal never stabbed him................... There is no nexus between the event that sent Daye to Hospital and his death."

The opinion of someone with no clinical training, no clinical experience, no clinical expertise does not establish there was no nexus between the stab wound and Reginald Daye's death. It is the opinion of at least three people who do have clinical expertise that the stab wound did cause Crystal's death. Which opinion would prevail in a court of law.

"If the sequence leading to his death predates the evaluation for a post surgical intra-abdominal infection it does not relate back to the repaired stab wound but instead to deprivation of alcohol in a chronic alcoholic."

You have not established that Reginald Daye was a chronic alcoholic. If he was, that does not nullify the FACT that Crystal stabbed him, that it was not in self defense(it takes more than the opinion of someone with no legal training and no legal experience to establish it was) that put him at risk of an intra abdominal infection, and that he died as a complication of an evaluation for an intra abdominal infection. What you are saying is tantamount to is, your belief that DTs were present should give Crystal a pass for creating the situation which caused Reginald Daye's death, is tantamount to you saying Reginald Daye deserved to die because you believe he had DTs.

This led him to a life threating alcohol withdrawal with impending delirium tremens.

What led to the possibility of a life threatening intra abdominal infection? I ask again, when confronted with a patient post repair of a colon laceration which exposed him to hours of abdominal contamination by colonic content, how would the treating physicians know whether or not an infection was present? The symptoms of fever, Tachycardia and disorientation are all consistent with infection. What you are saying is tantamount to, the treating physicians should have ignored the possibility of infection. What you are saying is tantamount to that, your self serving denials notwithstanding.

"Any event that sent Daye to Hospital could of had the same sequelae eg. a broken ankle."

And her you are saying that the stab wound Crystal inflicted on Reginald Daye IS what put him at risk of DTs, which in turn means that DTs would not have relieved Crystal of criminal responsibility for Reginald Daye's death. Congratulations for lodging your foot in your mouth.; March 5, 2018 at 3:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

part 2:

"When it was decided to rule out a post surgical infection by intubation of contrast the onus fell on the treating respiratory technician and his supervising physicians to intubate the trachea and not the esophagus and to determine if the placement was correct and if not to correct it before cardiac and cerebral anoxia causes irrepaharable harm."

Does not nullify the FACT that the stab wound inflicted on Reginald Daye by Crystal is what made it necessary to do the evaluation for an intra abdominal infection. No stab wound, no colon laceration, no risk of infection, no need to do the procedure which resulted in the adverse event which caused Reginald Daye's death. Said adverse event would not have been malpractice unless it was due to negligence. It is a fact of clinical medicine that complications are always forseeable or preventable. However, I would not expect someone with no cinical training, no clinical experience, no legal training, no legal experience to realize this, so I get you get a pass here. You do not get a pass for posing as a clinical/legal expert when you are not.

"You can't get a Welch ruling out of simply being the cause of sending a victim to hospital where their prior medical history ie. chronic alcoholism and a medical error in his treatment resulted in his death. Judge Ridgeway said as much,"

What you ignore is that what set him up for the medical error and the result, regardless of whether or not DTs were a factor is that Crystal stabbed him.

I qoute you: "Any event that sent Daye to Hospital could of had the same sequelae".

The event which sent Reginald Daye to the hospital was that Crystal stabbed him, and it was not in self defense.; March 5, 2018 at 3:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"That being said Dr. Nicolls whether deliberately or unknowingly failed to provide a complete and accurate cause of death. You can't legally leave out all the intervening occurrences. The charge of murder was contingent on the cause of death."

Again I quote you:

"Any event that sent Daye to Hospital could of had the same sequelae".

It was not just "any event" which put Reginald Daye in the hospital and exposed him to the events which led to his death.

That Crystal stabbed him in the back is what put him in the hospital, and if DTs were a factor, due to withdrawl from alcohol, it was the stab wound to the back which caused the withdrawl.

I again congratulate you for jamming your foot in your mouth and making the case for Crystal murdered Reginald Daye.; March 5, 2018 at 3:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

A third time i quote you:

"Any event that sent Daye to Hospital could of had the same sequelae".

So explain why Crystal, who caused the actual event which sent him to the hospital, should get a pass for murdering him.; March 5, 2018 at 3:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Let's do it again:

"Any event that sent Daye to Hospital could of had the same sequelae".

If some event other than the stab wound sent Reginald Daye to the Hospital, that would clear Crystal of the Murder charge.

Have you ever come up with some other event which sent Reginald Daye to the Hospital?

No.; March 5, 2018 at 3:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

One more time:

"Any event that sent Daye to Hospital could of had the same sequelae".

Were DTs the event that sent Reginald Daye to the hospital? No.

What caused the DTs? According to you, when he was put into the hospital he no longer had access to liquor.

What specific event put him into the hospital? Crystal stabbed him.

Explain. since Crystal's stabbing of Reginald Daye put him into the hospital and cut off his access to liquor, how the occurrence of DTs as a consequence of his being deprived of liquor gives Crystal a pass for murdering him?

Crystal could not make her case for self defense, and as has been explained to you, when a defendant in a murder trial offers self defense as a defense, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant.

Just like when Reade Seligmann put forth an alibi defense he assumed the burden of proving the alibi. He did have irrefutable proof that he was not present at the alleged crime scene at the time the alleged crime allegedly happened, your uncorroborated claim that he was notwithstanding.; March 5, 2018 at 5:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Let's get back to the issue of whether or not Sidney is delusional.

Part 1:

I am not a psychiatrist. I have had psychiatric training-any one with a professional degree like MD or DO has had psychiatric training. I had classes in years 1 and 2 of Medical School in which I sat in on sessions between patient and psychiatrist. In year 3 I did a 6 year rotation at a psychiatric hospital where I functioned as a therapist, albeit under supervision. Whether or not Kenny questions my background is irrelevant. I say again that is like the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan questioning the effectiveness of Barack Obama as president. I am rendering a personal opinion based on my actual psychiatric experience.

What Sidney said:

"What a joke on the citizens of Durham County... allowing the best district attorney -- one of integrity and independence, Mike Nifong -- the state has ever had to be forced out of office".

What the public record says:

When Nifong learned about the rape allegations, before he ever did any investigating he went public saying a crime had happened, members of the Lacrosse team were the perpetrators and the crime had been racially motivated. Without having any probable cause at the time, Nifong publicly accused people of perpetrating a hate crime, even if he did not name specific individuals.

Nifong made public statements about those individuals' retaining counsel, one statement to the effect that why would someone who had not been formally charged and who had not done anything criminal need a lawyer, one statement to the effect that the perpetrators had rich daddies who would hire expensive lawyers to get them off. Both statements were guilt presuming and both statements were in direct violation of the 6th Amendment which guaranteed an accused the right to be represented by counsel.

Nifong made a statement to the effect that remaining silent might be good legal advice but was not good moral advice. The 5th Amendment guarantees an accused protection against self incrimination. The Miranda decision reinforced that protection. Nifong's statement was contrary to the protection against protection guaranteed to defendants. Nifnog followed up with threats to prosecute members of the Lacrosse team for aiding and abetting if they did not come forth with information. Judging from how Moez Elmostafa was treated, it is obvious Nifong wanted only incriminating information, which is not exactly in line with the obligation of a prosecutor to seek the truth, and not a conviction.

Nifong had information that showed the alleged rape had not occurred, the report of the SBI crime lab that there was no evidence of semen, blood or saliva on the rape kit materials. He then went to the Community forum at NCCU and announced he would prosecute anyway, saying something to the effect that a crime had happened but nothing had been left.; March 5, 2018 at 6:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Let's get back to the issue of whether or not Sidney is delusional.

Part 2.

He then sought and got indictments for first degree forcible rape against three men identified by Crystal at an improper lineup procedure, in which she identified two men who had not been present at the alleged crime scene when the alleged crime had happenec. She said the third man she had identified had a mustache when he raped her and the man was proven to have been clean shaven at the time. At the same time Crystal identified a man with 100% certainty as having been at the party, and the man showed with 100% certainty he had not been at the party.

Nifong then went to DNA Security to test the rape kit materials for evidence which would incriminate the men he had indicted for and charged with first degree forcible rape. He got evidence which exonerated them. He concealed the evidence and, in violation of NC Law, then lied to the court about what evidence he had.

Sidney states, repeatedly, no one ever proved Crystal ever lied about being raped, showing he is ignorant of a fundamental principle of the Justice system, that a criminal defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that the prosecutor has the obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, no defendant has any obligation to prove the complaining witness lied. The prosecution has to prove the complaining witness told the truth

In the same vein, does Sidney's statement show he is not delusional?

I say, not as a psychiatric diagnosis but as a personal opinion based on my own experience, Sidney is delusional.

And Sidney, with no credentials to establish himself as an expert medical witness, has repeatedly rendered an expert medical opinion, that Dr. Nichols produced a false autopsy report.; March 5, 2018 at 6:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

One more for good measure:

"Any event that sent Daye to Hospital could of had the same sequelae".

Tell us, what was the specific event which sent him to the hospital.

Hint: the court determined in a fair and objective trial it as not self defense on the part of the individual who inflicted the event, regardless of what you and your delusional(in my opinion) mentor)might claim.; March 5, 2018 at 7:37 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "Tell us, what was the specific event which sent him to the hospital"......................... An event, ie. the stab wound administered in self defense by Crystal, that was not directly related, in a medical or legal sense, to his unfortunate demise. You can't stretch a Welch ruling that far.; March 5, 2018 at 7:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "Tell us, what was the specific event which sent him to the hospital"......................... An event, ie. the stab wound administered in self defense by Crystal, that was not directly related, in a medical or legal sense, to his unfortunate demise. You can't stretch a Welch ruling that far."

You are ducking and dodging again.

Again: "Any event that sent Daye to Hospital could of had the same sequelae".

The question was, what was the event which sent Reginald Daye to the Hospital which, if we believe you, precipitated the alleged DTs, which event, according to you, resulted in his death. According to you he went into DTs because he no longer had access to alcohol. I will rephrase. If it was DTs due to being cut off from alcohol, what was the event which cut him off from alcohol.

What you are arguing is, and this is something debunked by KC Johnson, the most authoritative commentator on the Duke Rape Hoas, is saying that Crystal should get a pass for murdering Reginald Daye because the doctors were unsuccessful treating the condition she inflicted on him.

PS A court of law decided, based on what Crystal presented to them, it was not self defense.

PPS If it was Medical malpractice which killed Reginald Daye, it would not have shielded Crystal from criminal responsibility since she inflicted the event which exposed him to the risk of medial malpractice.

PPPS A Murder conviction would not have shielded DUMC from civil liability for actual malpractice, and it does take more than the opinoons of you and Sidney to establish malpractice.; March 5, 2018 at 8:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny again and again:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "Tell us, what was the specific event which sent him to the hospital"......................... An event, ie. the stab wound administered in self defense by Crystal, that was not directly related, in a medical or legal sense, to his unfortunate demise. You can't stretch a Welch ruling that far.

and:

"Any event that sent Daye to Hospital could of had the same sequelae".

You have gone on record, and I stand my ground on this, that Reginald Daye went into DTs because he was deprived of his alcohol. What you are saying is that any event which would have sent him to the hospital and deprived him of the alcohol would have sent him into DTs. And you are on record that he died because of a complication of the DTs which were precipitated by the hospital admission.

Therefore you contradict yourself when you say, and I quote,"the stab wound administered in self defense by Crystal...was not directly related, in a medical or legal sense, to his unfortunate demise." If DTs had actually happened, and the event which sent him to the hospital and cut him off from his alcohol and caused the DTa was the stab wound inflicted by Crystal, then his death was medically and legally related to the stab wound.

And as Crystal could not make her case for self defense in open court, and the evidence shows she did not act in self defense, the stab wound was to Reginald Daye's back and she showed no evidence of the trauma one would see from the beating she alleged Reginald Daye inflicted on her(just like she showed no evidence of the kind of trauma which would have been inflicted in the brutal gang raped she had alleged), she did not act in self defense.; March 5, 2018 at 8:31 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "What you are arguing is, and this is something debunked by KC Johnson, the most authoritative commentator on the Duke Rape Hoas, is saying that Crystal should get a pass for murdering Reginald Daye because the doctors were unsuccessful treating the condition she inflicted on him."................................You are dead wrong. The Doctors were totally successful in treating the condition inflicted by Crystal and he was fully expected to recover. The condition that sent him into the ICU was an intervening acute alcohol withdrawal and potentially fatal impending delirium tremens. Crystal bore no responsibility for this diagnosed intervening event. Had Daye not been a chronic alcoholic heavily dependent on a massive daily dose of ethanol he would have been, as expected, discharged; March 5, 2018 at 10:02 AM
kenhyderal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 5, 2018 at 10:08 AM
kenhyderal said...: For those readers not familiar with KC Johnson referenced by Dr. Anonymous I recommend this critique https://truthaboutkcjohnson.wordpress.com/; March 5, 2018 at 10:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "What you are arguing is, and this is something debunked by KC Johnson, the most authoritative commentator on the Duke Rape Hoas, is saying that Crystal should get a pass for murdering Reginald Daye because the doctors were unsuccessful treating the condi anytion she inflicted on him."................................You are dead wrong. The Doctors were totally successful in treating the condition inflicted by Crystal and he was fully expected to recover".

In my internship, I was involved with a patient who had had an uneventful appendectomy and was discharged home with a prognosis of full recovery. He showed up at our ER two months later with 2 liters of pus in his belly from a blown appendiceal stump, which was a case of colonic contamination of the abdomen.

I had a patient who had a Coronary Bypass procedure, completely routine, no problems at all. Ten days after surgery he had an arrythmia, arrested and died.

I know of another case of a man discharged home from an uneventful, totally routine case, who was found dead at home, supposedly from an arrythmia.

I, myself went through a surgical procedure which had a just about zero chance of post op infection, and all the proper steps were taken to prevent infection. I was back in the hospital two weeks later with a serious wound infection.

What you argue is that two or three days after a routine surgical procedure there is no chance of a complication. That is a fallacy, and I say that from actual hands on experience.

"The condition that sent him into the ICU was an intervening acute alcohol withdrawal and potentially fatal impending delirium tremens."

Said condition, you have admitted, could have happened for any reason that put him in the hospital. Again I quote you: "Any event that sent Daye to Hospital could of had the same sequelae". The condition which put Reginald Daye into the hospital away from any access to liquor, which you say is what resulted in the DTs was the stab wound which Crystal inflicted on him. Crystal does not get a pass for murdering him, even if DTs were the cause of the adverse event which killed him.

"Crystal bore no responsibility for this diagnosed intervening event.

Again I quote your: "Any event that sent Daye to Hospital could of had the same sequelae". The stab wound which Crystal inflicted on Reginald Daye is what put him in the hospial. If it was DTs, the stab wound inflicted by Crystal is the event which cut him off from liquor. By your own words you show Crystal DID have responsibility.

"Had Daye on not been a chronic alcoholic heavily dependent on a massive daily dose of ethanol he would have been, as expected, discharged".

So then explain your statement "Any event that sent Daye to Hospital could of had the same sequelae". If Rginad Daye had been a chronic alcoholic who was dependent upon his daily dose of ethannol, if it was not the stab wound which Crystal had inflicted on him, which put him in the hospital cut off from his daily dose of ethanot, then what was it?

Yet another example of how Kenny tries to bullshit his way around and through facts he does not like, facts which show his favorite false rape accuser/convicted murderess is a convicted murderess.; March 5, 2018 at 11:34 AM
A Reasonable Man said...: For those not familiar with the author of the "https://truthaboutkcjohnson.wordpress.com/" website, I recommend:

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/search?q=Haynie; March 5, 2018 at 11:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhydeal:

"For those readers not familiar with KC Johnson referenced by Dr. Anonymous I recommend this critique https://truthaboutkcjohnson.wordpress.com/"

Yes, go to the link and read it.

Then go and read what KC Johnson wrote, look at what the gang of 88 ad said and decide for yourselves. He no longer publishes his blog but some of his blogs are still available. Better yet, go to Amazon, look up Until Proven Innocent and see how many reviewers agree with Charles Piot's post. The score is, of 146 review, 126 are positiv(4 or 5 star, ten are neutral(3 on a scale of 1 to 5) and the rest are negative(1 or 2 stars).

For another book, It's Not About the Truth, the reviews berak down as 60 positive, 4 neutral, 7 negative.

For Rush to Injustice the reviews break down to 4 neutral, 3 negative.

For Price of Silence, of which Kenny stands in awe, the reviews break down to 64 positive, 6 neutral, 123 negative.

For The Last Dance for Grace the reviews break down to 6 positive, 15 negative.

I say it is safe to believe that most people are not sympathetic with Charles Piot'view.

Check it out for yourselves.; March 5, 2018 at 12:17 PM
kenhyderal said...: The blog of the Duke Lacrosse Apologists, inappropriately called "Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers" organized themselves to post positive views on any pro Duke Lacrosse books and negative reviews and finical criticism of any of those who question the well-developed meta-narrative of Crystal as an evil, sinister, scheming femme fatale and the lacrosse players as innocent, naive, beset upon, victims.; March 5, 2018 at 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey, Kenny,
I'm sure you can always find some fool who will write something that makes you or Crystal look good. None of us here believe that junk.; March 5, 2018 at 2:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"The blog of the Duke Lacrosse Apologists, inappropriately called "Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers" organized themselves to post positive views on any pro Duke Lacrosse books and negative reviews and finical criticism of any of those who question the well-developed meta-narrative of Crystal as an evil, sinister, scheming femme fatale and the lacrosse players as innocent, naive, beset upon, victims."

The so called Due Lacrosse Apologists defend innocent men who were falsely accused of and wrongfully prosecuted for a crime which never happened. Kenny has never given any factual evidence to support his allegation that Cyrstal had been raped. Kenny is on record that he believes Crystal because he trusts Crystal, which is tantamount to saying, the Lacrosse defendants should have been convicted solely on the word of Crystal. The only metanarrative in the Duke Rape Hoax is the story that Crystal had been raped. And Kenny is an apologist for a false rape accuser/convicted criminal/convicted murderess. Who is trying to construct a metanarrative? Not the demonstrably innocent Lacrosse defendants. They have truth on their side. Only someone who does not have truth on his side, e.g. Kenny would try to construct a metanarrative.

No one involved in the defense of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse defendants ever characterized Crystal as an "evil, sinister, scheming femme fatale ". Kenny, please show that someone other than you has ever referred to Crystal as an "evil, sinister, scheming femme fatale". The facts of the case show no rape ever happened. Ergo, Crystal was and is a false rape accuser, and that is no metanarrative.

Why do you not prove what you allege about the reviews on Amazon. BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.; March 5, 2018 at 3:27 PM
Anonymous said...: From Barnes and Noble: Until Proven Innocent has 1 review, 4 stars.

It's Not About the Truth no reviews

A Rush to Injustice 1 review 5 stars 1 review 1 star. That review maintains Crystal had been raped, and there is no evidence the crime never happened.

The Price of Silence 11 reviewsm 10 one star, 1 five star

The Last Dance for Grace No reviews.

From Books a Million:

No reviews for Until Proven Innocent, A rush to Injustice, It's not about the Truth no reviews.

No reviews for The Price of Silence or Last Dance for Grace; March 5, 2018 at 3:44 PM
Anonymous said...: For books supportive of the Lacrosse Defendants 224 reviews, 190 positie, 14 neutral, 20 negative.

For books not supportive of the Lacrosse defendants: 214 reviews, 70 positive, 6 neutral, 138 negative.

Kenny does not like it but it is a reflection of what the public believes.

That is because there are facts showing that the Lacrosse defendants are innocent and that the crime of which they were accused did not happen.

All Kenny and Sidney have is a metanarrative unsupported by any factual evidence.

Kenny and his ravings about a metanarrative? A case of projection on Kenny's part.; March 5, 2018 at 3:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny's comment of March 5, 2018 at 10:14 AM:

:For those readers not familiar with KC Johnson referenced by Dr. Anonymous I recommend this critique https://truthaboutkcjohnson.wordpress.com/:

Another example of the Nifongian way to prove something. Pick out something which supports your argument and suppress anything which does not.

Well, not truly Nifongian. To be truly Nifongian, Kenny would be trying to manufacture evidence and pressuring and intimidating others into giving him the evidence he wanted, regardless of whether or not it is evidence and not fabrication.

Unfortunately Kenny is incapable of intimidating anyone but himself.

ry; March 5, 2018 at 4:04 PM
kenhyderal said...: A Reasonable Man said: For those not familiar with the author of the "https://truthaboutkcjohnson.wordpress.com/" website, I recommend:
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/search?q=Haynie ------------------- ???; March 5, 2018 at 4:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Krnhydeeal:

"A Reasonable Man said: For those not familiar with the author of the "https://truthaboutkcjohnson.wordpress.com/" website, I recommend:
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/search?q=Haynie ------------------- ???"

Here is something I copied and pasted from the link in A Reasonable Man's post:

"This case already has featured one highly unusual definition of "forthcoming"--that of Group of 88 statement author Wahneema Lubiano, who has listed two books as "forthcoming" . . . since 1997. Now, another of the anti-lacrosse faculty appears to have adopted Lubiano's flexible definition.

Kerry Haynie recently distinguished himself when he attacked UPI--which, he admitted, he hadn't read. Last October, he sent Steve Baldwin a nasty e-mail after Baldwin criticized the Group of 88. And, when asked why he signed the "clarifying" letter, Haynie refused to give an explanation, responding instead, "Get a freaking life! Quote me."

Haynie came to Duke from Rutgers. Here's a line from his Rutgers website: "Professor Haynie's next book, Stepping Stones or Stumbling Blocks? Campaign Finance Reform and Minority Group Representation is under contract with Stanford University Press and is forthcoming in 2003."

By 2005, having been hired by Duke as a tenured associate professor on the basis of his Rutgers record, Haynie was no longer listing the book as forthcoming: "He is currently completing a book on campaign finance reform and minority group representation to be published by Stanford University Press." His CV listed the book as "under contract."

And:

"Here's a line from Haynie's current Duke website: "K. Haynie (with Kathlen [sic] A. Bratton), Stepping Stones or Stumbling Blocks? Campaign Finance Reform and Minority Group Representation (forthcoming 2007), Stanford University Press." (Co-author Bratton--whose name Haynie's website misspells--only lists the book as "under contract.")

And here's a line from this morning's Stanford University Press website (which "only list books that are currently in print or forthcoming") after searches done for "Haynie" and "Stepping Stones or Stumbling Blocks?": "No books matched your query."

Kenny, I say you are trying to delude people, in this case to delude peope thar rhe page does not exist.

You are patheic.; March 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Krnhyderal:

Here are Professor Johnson's credentials, from the site referenced by A reasonable Man:

"I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University"

How about you provide your own credentials.

If ou comr bacj with present your own, that would be an admission you have no credentials. And I would reply:

STEW STEW STEW STEW STEW STEW STEW STEW STEW STEW and STEW again.Why should I stop provokong you into showing the world what a jerk you are.; March 5, 2018 at 4:35 PM
Anonymous said...: I need to corrct typos:

Kenhydeeal:

"A Reasonable Man said: For those not familiar with the author of the "https://truthaboutkcjohnson.wordpress.com/" website, I recommend:
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/search?q=Haynie ------------------- ???"

Here is something I copied and pasted from the link in A Reasonable Man's post:

"This case already has featured one highly unusual definition of "forthcoming"--that of Group of 88 statement author Wahneema Lubiano, who has listed two books as "forthcoming" . . . since 1997. Now, another of the anti-lacrosse faculty appears to have adopted Lubiano's flexible definition.

Kerry Haynie recently distinguished himself when he attacked UPI--which, he admitted, he hadn't read. Last October, he sent Steve Baldwin a nasty e-mail after Baldwin criticized the Group of 88. And, when asked why he signed the "clarifying" letter, Haynie refused to give an explanation, responding instead, "Get a freaking life! Quote me."

Haynie came to Duke from Rutgers. Here's a line from his Rutgers website: "Professor Haynie's next book, Stepping Stones or Stumbling Blocks? Campaign Finance Reform and Minority Group Representation is under contract with Stanford University Press and is forthcoming in 2003."

By 2005, having been hired by Duke as a tenured associate professor on the basis of his Rutgers record, Haynie was no longer listing the book as forthcoming: "He is currently completing a book on campaign finance reform and minority group representation to be published by Stanford University Press." His CV listed the book as "under contract."

And:

"Here's a line from Haynie's current Duke website: "K. Haynie (with Kathlen [sic] A. Bratton), Stepping Stones or Stumbling Blocks? Campaign Finance Reform and Minority Group Representation (forthcoming 2007), Stanford University Press." (Co-author Bratton--whose name Haynie's website misspells--only lists the book as "under contract.")

And here's a line from this morning's Stanford University Press website (which "only list books that are currently in print or forthcoming") after searches done for "Haynie" and "Stepping Stones or Stumbling Blocks?": "No books matched your query."

Kenny, I say you are trying to delude people, in this case to delude people that the page does not exist.

You are pathetic.; March 5, 2018 at 4:38 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "Kenny, please show that someone other than you has ever referred to Crystal as an "evil, sinister, scheming femme fatale"....................... Ever read what the likes of Joan Foster has posted on Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers Or places like this. http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.ca/2010/02/crystal-mangum-jailed-duke-lacrosse.html This is the kind of disgusting, evil that is widely circulating and which I even shudder to copy and paste. I know if I don't post something in those exact words, you, who in the manner of all Duke Lacrosse Apologists attack all and everything, concede nothing, no matter how insignificant and most often resort to hurling epithets, like liar, racist, Nazi at those who question you're metanarrative; March 5, 2018 at 4:39 PM
Anonymous said...: oops

I should have said, I need to correct typos:

Go ahead and laugh, Kenny. I guess you do need a bit of levity with all the burden of pushing your metanarrative.; March 5, 2018 at 4:41 PM
A Reasonable Man said...: Kenhyderal -- Who do you think is the author of the blog entry linked at "https://truthaboutkcjohnson.wordpress.com/"?; March 5, 2018 at 4:44 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: Kenny, I say you are trying to delude people, in this case to delude people that the page does not exist" See what I mean? No I was just wondering what that site had to do with Charles Piot B.T.W. I have no academic credentials other than a B.Sc.; March 5, 2018 at 4:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Krnhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "Kenny, please show that someone other than you has ever referred to Crystal as an "evil, sinister, scheming femme fatale"....................... Ever read what the likes of Joan Foster has posted on Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers"

How about you copy and paste something Joan Foster actually said.

Or places like this. http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.ca/2010/02/crystal-mangum-jailed-duke-lacrosse.html"

I do not have much respect for the New York Post. However, may I acquaint you with a legal concept, you must approach the court with clean hands. Example, you embezzle money from a firm. Someone embezzles that money from you. No court in the land would order that individual to return that money to you

"This is the kind of disgusting, evil that is widely circulating and which I even shudder to copy and paste."

So what is clean and just and upright about accusing innocent men of a foul, racist sex crime which never happened? I have repeat

I know if I don't post something in those exact words, you, who in the manner of all Duke Lacrosse Apologists attack all and everything, concede nothing, no matter how insignificant and most often resort to hurling epithets, like liar, racist, Nazi at those who question you're metanarrative; March 5, 2018 at 4:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Udaman a Reasonable Man.; March 5, 2018 at 5:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal: Continued:

I repeat, "This is the kind of disgusting, evil that is widely circulating and which I even shudder to copy and paste."

So what is clean and just and upright about accusing innocent men of a foul, racist sex crime which never happened? I have repeatedly challenged you to prove Crystal had been raped as she described. Your most recent reply has been, and I can copy and paste your comment again, you do not need proof told the truth about being raped because you trust her which IS tantamount to saying that the accused should have been convicted solely on the word of Crystal.

I have pointed out to you that the persecutors of the Scottsboro boys advocated that the Scottsboro boys be convicted only on the word of the false accusers. And I say again your attitude shows you do have the morals and ethics of a Scottsboro persecutor, which does show you are a racist.

So far as calling me an apologist for the Lacrosse team, you honor me. I say again, apologists for the Duke Lacrosse team defend innocent men who were falsely accused of a heinous, racist motivated felony sex crime which never happened. You, in contrast, are an apologist for a woman who IS a false rape accuser, a two time convicted criminal, and a convicted murderess. You are also an apologist for a man who tries to convince the world that the innocent men are guilty, and his strategy is to pass off lies as truth, like Mike Nifong did not conceal exculpatory evidence.

So what is my metanarrative? Your metanarrative is that innocent men raped Crystal.

I say further, your attitude, that the innocent men should have been convicted solely on the word of Crystal, another way of saying it is, Crystal had denounced them so they should have been condemned. Nazi Germany had that kind of feature to its justice system, denuniation of someone was enough to have a person imprisoned. So HEIL KENNY.; March 5, 2018 at 5:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: Kenny, I say you are trying to delude people, in this case to delude people that the page does not exist" See what I mean? No I was just wondering what that site had to do with Charles Piot B.T.W. I have no academic credentials other than a B.Sc. "

OK. Now tell us what credentials you have that qualify you to render expert medical and legal opinions, like whether or not malpractice occurred or what caused Reginald Daye's death.; March 5, 2018 at 5:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Ubes.; March 5, 2018 at 7:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny or Sidney or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.; March 5, 2018 at 7:36 PM
The Great Kilgo said...: Kenhyderal, please help me! I'min k;ijj;sdasdjbc w'ecoclj; March 5, 2018 at 7:40 PM
Inconnu said...: Ecoute, Kenhyderal! C'est tres iportant que tu viennes a Durham. Autrement je ne sais pas ce que va etre de ton ami le Gros Kilgo!; March 5, 2018 at 9:32 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: OK. Now tell us what credentials you have that qualify you to render expert medical and legal opinions, like whether or not malpractice occurred or what caused Reginald Daye's death. Like, for the former, I take the pronouncement of the American Society of Anesthesiology and lie for the latter, common sense that tells me prolonged cerebral anoxia from a non-patent airway causes brain death. Don't need a medical degree for that one; March 5, 2018 at 9:34 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ A Reasonable Man: Question answered. Sorry, I posted the wrong link http://fds.duke.edu/db?attachment-17--1263-view-347; March 5, 2018 at 9:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: OK. Now tell us what credentials you have that qualify you to render expert medical and legal opinions, like whether or not malpractice occurred or what caused Reginald Daye's death. Like, for the former, I take the pronouncement of the American Society of Anesthesiology and lie for the latter, common sense that tells me prolonged cerebral anoxia from a non-patent airway causes brain death. Don't need a medical degree for that one"

However, were I to have testified, and I acknowledge this is hypothetical, I would have testified that the adverse event was not the result of negligence and was not malpractice, and to establish malpractice one has to establish negligence. I could document for the court that I have operated for penetrating colon injuries, I have treated intra abdominal infections, I have done autopsies. I have done dozens if successful intuations. You could not. All you could say is< I read this piece from the American Society of Anesthesiologists. The court would recognize me as a medical expert witness. The Court would not recognize you, and that is more than a quibble. Establishing malpractice is a complex process and someone like you would not at all understand the situation.

Your latest screed is irrelevant.; March 6, 2018 at 3:17 AM
Anonymous said...: fKenhyderal in his ow words:

"Any event that sent Daye to Hospital could of had the same sequelae".

"The condition that sent him into the ICU was an [allegedly according to non medical expert Kenhyderal] intervening acute alcohol withdrawal and potentially fatal impending delirium tremens."

"Had Daye on not been a chronic alcoholic heavily dependent on a massive daily dose of ethanol he would have been, as expected, discharged".

Kenny, instead of resorting to more ducking and dodging an evading and avoiding, answer the question:

WHAT WAS THE SPECIFIC INCIDENT WHICH PUT REGINALD DAY IN THE HOSPITAL, THE SPECIFIC INCIDENT WHICH CAUSED THE ALCOHOL WITHDRAWL THE SPECIFIC INCIDENT WHICH CUT HIM OFF FROM A "MASSIVE DAILY DSE F ETHANOL", IF NOT THE STAB WOUND INFLICTED ON HIM BY CRYSTAL, AND IT WAS NOT INFLICTED IN SELF DEFENSE.

Then,

WHY WAS CRYSTAL NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DEATH, EVEN IF IT WAS DUE TO DTs, THE CONSEQUENCE OF AN INCIDENT WHICH PUT HIM IN THE HOSPITAL WHICH [allegedly by non medical expert Kenhyderal] DEPRIVED HIM OF HIS "MASSIVE DAILY DOSE OF ETHANOL". DO YOU DENY THAT THE INCIDENT WHICH PUT HIM IN THE HOSPITAL WAS THE STAB WOUND INFLICTED BY CRYSTAL?; March 6, 2018 at 4:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Your attitude towards credentials and medical expertise is the attitude of a lynch mobster. Specifically, I say, you ignore the law, you ignore the rules of judicial procedure, you ignore protections put in place to protect a defendant, and that would include a defendant in a medical malpractice case, from an unfair trial, and you say the defendant should be condemned on the basis of your personal beliefs. In the Duke Rape hoax your beliefs in the face of zero evidence are that Crystal had been raped and that the accused should have been convicted solely on the word of Crystal. In the Reginald Daye murder case, your belief is that because you read a certain opinion on line, and have ignored all contrary opinions, that Reginald Daye died of malpractice.

Not at all surprising that someone with the morals and ethics of a Scottsboro persecutor would adopt a lynch mob attitude to make his point.; March 6, 2018 at 4:54 AM
Anonymous said...: I again neer to correct typos. My apologies:

Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: OK. Now tell us what credentials you have that qualify you to render expert medical and legal opinions, like whether or not malpractice occurred or what caused Reginald Daye's death. Like, for the former, I take the pronouncement of the American Society of Anesthesiology and lie for the latter, common sense that tells me prolonged cerebral anoxia from a non-patent airway causes brain death. Don't need a medical degree for that one"

However, were I to have testified, and I acknowledge this is hypothetical, I would have testified that the adverse event was not the result of negligence and was not malpractice, and to establish malpractice one has to establish negligence. I could document for the court that I have operated for penetrating colon injuries, I have treated intra abdominal infections, I have done autopsies. I have done dozens of successful intuations. You could not. All you could say is, I read this piece from the American Society of Anesthesiologists. The court would recognize me as a medical expert witness. The Court would not recognize you, and that is more than a quibble. Establishing malpractice is a complex process and someone like you would not at all understand the situation.

Your latest screed is irrelevant.; March 6, 2018 at 4:58 AM
Anonymous said...: oops again:

I should havesaidI again NEED to correct typos. My apologies:; March 6, 2018 at 4:59 AM
Anonymous said...: I see I got it wrong again.

I should have said, I again NEED to correct typos. My apologies.

If I may refer to Star Trek, one of my favorite series:

goddamit Jim, I'm a Doctor not a typist.; March 6, 2018 at 5:03 AM
A Reasonable Man said...: Ah -- Good old Charlie Piot....The man who claimed that the original Duke Chronical ad, "What does a Social Disaster Sound Like", was about events surrounding Hurricane Katrina....

You remember the ad? The one that stated:

"If it turns out that these students are guilty, I want them expelled. But their expulsion will only bring resolution to this case and not the bigger problem. This is much bigger than them and throwing them out will not solve the problem..."

"I can’t help but think about the different attention given to what has happened from what it would have been if the guys had been not just black but participating in a different sport,like football, something that’s not so upscale."

Because, you know, Hurricane Katrina needed to be expelled or would have received different attention if it had been a different race....

So...In response to your Charlie Piot link, I'll give you this:

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/10/reflections-on-piot-principles.html; March 6, 2018 at 6:11 AM
kenhyderal said...: A dust up between academics. Both of them perfectly capable of defending themselves. I posted a link to Piot in order to show that the one source Duke Lacrosse Apologists considered ultimate and authoritative, in defence of the Duke Lacrosse Team, does have his detractors.; March 6, 2018 at 9:52 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: All you could say is, I read this piece from the American Society of Anesthesiologists. The court would recognize me as a medical expert witness. The Court would not recognize you, and that is more than a quibble..............................Don't be disingenuous. Of course I would not be an expert witness but members in The American Society of Anesthesiology could be. I doubt you would ever agree to be a defence expert in a case brought against Duke for malpractice in the death of Reginald Daye.; March 6, 2018 at 10:06 AM
A Reasonable Man said...: kenhyderal -- Why? Piot was not then and (AFAIK) does not now disagree with the information on D-I-W regarding the actual Duke LAX case. His issue is with the way the so-called "Gang of 88" were singled out and vilified.

Can you identify 1 provably false thing posted by KC Johnson on the D-I-W blog specifically regarding the LAX case other than these "dust up(s) between academics"?; March 6, 2018 at 10:11 AM
A Reasonable Man said...: "I doubt you would ever agree to be a defence expert in a case brought against Duke for malpractice in the death of Reginald Daye."

Am I reading this correctly? In a malpractice suit like the one you've identified here, Dr. A would be an expert for Duke (the defendant)...Why would he not agree to be an expert -- he's already stated he would have testify that the adverse event was not the result of negligence and was not malpractice.; March 6, 2018 at 10:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"A dust up between academics. Both of them perfectly capable of defending themselves. I posted a link to Piot in order to show that the one source Duke Lacrosse Apologists considered ultimate and authoritative, in defence of the Duke Lacrosse Team, does have his detractors."

Means absolutely nothing, since the cause of the gang of 88 ad was Crystal's false allegations that she had been raped by members of the Lacrosse team, allegations which have been conclusively been proven false. That Charles Piot would attack someone who defends the innocence of the Lacrosse players shows Charles Piot is, like Kenny, obsessed with gets some kind of gratification from the idea that Crystal had been raped, nothing more.; March 6, 2018 at 11:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenny loves to pretend no one sues Duke - he forgets that they are routinely sued for malpractice (like any healthcare organization). People do sue Duke.

In addition, he consistently ignores the law that has been repeatedly explained to him (as does Sid) - even if it were malpractice, since the only reason Daye was in the hospital was the stabbing, Crystal is still on the hook for it.; March 6, 2018 at 11:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: All you could say is, I read this piece from the American Society of Anesthesiologists. The court would recognize me as a medical expert witness. The Court would not recognize you, and that is more than a quibble..............................Don't be disingenuous. Of course I would not be an expert witness"

So why do you act like you are an expert witness. You do so each and every time you say that malpractice was the cause of Reginald Daye's death when malpractice has not been established.

"but members in The American Society of Anesthesiology could be."

Agreed. However it is assuming a fact not in evidence if you claim they would be witnesses against Duke, or if you assume none of them would be a witness for Duke.

"I doubt you would ever agree to be a defence expert in a case brought against Duke for malpractice in the death of Reginald Daye."

Did you miss the part in which I said the situation which elicited this response from you was hypothetical. Not unusual from someone who tries to make his points by selecting out only what he wants to see and then ignores and suppresses the rest(again acknowledgement to Simon and Garfunkle).

And while we are here, address the following issue instead of ducking, dodbinb, avoiding and evading:

Kenhyderal quotes:

"Any event that sent Daye to Hospital could of had the same sequelae".

"The condition that sent him into the ICU was an [allegedly according to non medical expert Kenhyderal] intervening acute alcohol withdrawal and potentially fatal impending delirium tremens."

"Had Daye on not been a chronic alcoholic heavily dependent on a massive daily dose of ethanol he would have been, as expected, discharged".

What was the specific event which sent Reginald Daye to the hospital, which deprived him of his "massive daily dose of ethanol", and set him up for the occurrence of "potentially fatal impending delirium tremens.", if not the stab wound inflicted on him by Crystal Mangum.

And since the stab wound is the specific event which put him in the hospital, which allegedly deprived him of access to alcohol and which set him up for the alleged potentially fatal case of DTs, why is Crystal not responsible for his death, since she DID NOT act in self defense.; March 6, 2018 at 11:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Another typo:

And while we are here, address the following issue instead of ducking, dodbinb, avoiding and evading

should have been And while we are here, address the following issue instead of ducking, dodging, avoiding and evading.

I get distracted when I am involved in such a worthwhile activity.; March 6, 2018 at 11:26 AM
kenhyderal said...: You've missed my point. By your reasoning, if Crystal had deliberately tripped Daye and he suffered an open fracture of the ankle and, following repair, a couple of days later he went into acute alcohol withdrawal with the same protocol being followed, (ie. eliminating a, post surgical repair, infection and the same medical mistake that killed him occurred) then Crystal would be guilty of murder??; March 6, 2018 at 1:16 PM
kenhyderal said...: A reasonable man said: "Why would he not agree to be an expert -- he's already stated he would have testify that the adverse event was not the result of negligence and was not malpractice"........... I was assuming he would not be as confident to defend against Duke's liability in Court as he is here to defend it against the charges of a lay person like me.; March 6, 2018 at 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Part 1:

"You've missed my point. By your reasoning, if Crystal had deliberately tripped Daye and he suffered an open fracture of the ankle and, following repair, a couple of days later he went into acute alcohol withdrawal with the same protocol being followed, (ie. eliminating a, post surgical repair, infection and the same medical mistake that killed him occurred) then Crystal would be guilty of murder??"

You have not made a point. You do not make any point by ducking, dodging, avoiding and evading the issue you do not want to confront. The issue is, it was not any issue which put Reginald Daye into the hospital and caused his death from alleged alcoholism, specifically abrupt deprivation of alcohol. It was a specific issue which put Reginald Daye into that situation, the stab wound inflicted on Reginald Daye by Crystal, and the evidence she presented did not make her case for self defense, and it means, even if it was DTs and a complication of treatment of DTs, Crystal was criminally responsible for Reginald Daye's death. An individual who murders another human being does not get a pass for murder because the treating physicians were unable to save the victim's life, even if it were a real and not just an alleged episode of malpractice. In the Reginald Daye murder, the people alleging malpractice do not have the expertise to really recognize malpractice; March 6, 2018 at 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Part 2:

Considering your hypothetical issue:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault:

"In criminal and civil law, assault is a threat of imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person, or a threat to do so.[1] It is distinct from battery, which refers to the actual achievement of such contact."

From https://www.wisemantriallaw.com/blog/2012/july/is-there-misdemeanor-and-felony-assault-and-batt/:

"A misdemeanor or simple assault becomes an aggravated assault, also known as an assault with a deadly weapon in some areas, if a deadly weapon is used or you used some other means of force likely to cause serious or great bodily injury."

Would Crystal have had to come in physical contact to trip Reginad Daye? Yes.

If Crystal did deliberately trip Reginald Daye, would it not have been assault and battery? Yes it would have been.

Is an open fracture of the ankle a forseeable consequence of Crystal deliberately tripping Reginad Daye. Yes it is.

Would an open fracture of the ankle caused by Crystal deliberately tripping Reginald Daye qualify as a serious bodily injury. As it would have resulted in Surgery, which would have entailed the risks of Anesthesia, a risk of an infection of the bone and a risk of disabling post traumatic arthritis later in life, well put it this way, would you deny that it would qualify as serious bodily injury?

If this scenario had been real, and Reginald Daye had gone into DTs and had died as a complication of treatment, since I was unaware of your hypothetical scenario until I saw your post, you can not say that I would have called that murder. What you said, "By your reasoning, if Crystal had deliberately tripped Daye and he suffered an open fracture of the ankle and, following repair, a couple of days later he went into acute alcohol withdrawal with the same protocol being followed, (ie. eliminating a, post surgical repair, infection and the same medical mistake that killed him occurred) then Crystal would be guilty of murder??" is irrelevant.

I would say Crystal would be criminally and civilly responsible for Reginald Daye's death because she would have committed felony assault and battery and, if DTs were a factor, then the felony assault and battery would have been the event which put him at risk of potentially fatal DTs. Possibly it could have amounted to manslaughter.; March 6, 2018 at 3:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"A reasonable man said: "Why would he not agree to be an expert -- he's already stated he would have testify that the adverse event was not the result of negligence and was not malpractice"........... I was assuming he would not be as confident to defend against Duke's liability in Court as he is here to defend it against the charges of a lay person like me."

Another irrelevant statement, as if I had been called as an expert witness to support Duke's defense, I would not have been the only witness called.

What makes you so sure that any medical expert would support a malpractice suit filed against Duke. The only medical experts who have officially weighed in on the issue have said nothing about malpractice, and your attacks on them mean nothing.

Name at least one expert who agrees with your take on the case.; March 6, 2018 at 3:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Udaman a Reasonable Man.; March 6, 2018 at 5:04 PM
A Reasonable Man said...: Thank you. Thank you very much.; March 6, 2018 at 5:23 PM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "The only medical experts who have officially weighed in on the issue have said nothing about malpractice"...........................Strange, eh? Can you speculate on the reason Nichols left out everything between she stabbed him and he died. Ignorance or deception? He himself speculated that the complication that killed him was "obviously some sort of infection or some sot of other catastrophic illness". This was patently untrue but Meier never challenged it.; March 6, 2018 at 9:14 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Why don't you just go to Durham, hire a lawyer (maybe even drag Nifong out of retirement) and file for an appeal? The bunch of us here are just tired of listening to all your whining.I'll repeat something I said before: I'll forgive your racism if only you'll stop whining.; March 6, 2018 at 9:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhydeal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: "The only medical experts who have officially weighed in on the issue have said nothing about malpractice"...........................Strange, eh? Can you speculate on the reason Nichols left out everything between she stabbed him and he died."

He didn't. He summed it up when he said she stabbed him and he died. What happened between the stab wound Crystal inflicted on Reginald Daye, and his death, would not have happened if Crystal had not stabbed him, something you and Sidney always leave out, and said stab wound was not in self defense. Dr. Roberts, the defense expert, agreed with him. No other expert has agreed with your and Sidney's take on it, and because a couple of non experts think they know more than the experts is irrelevant.

Now, after you have said that any event which put Reginald Daye in the hospital and cut him off from his alleged daily massive dose of ethanol could cause his death from DTs, and the event which did so was the stab wound which Crystal inflicted on him, and it was not in self defense, explain how even if a fatal case of DTs had occurred, there no nexus between Reginald Daye's death and the stab wound.

"Ignorance or deception? He himself speculated that the complication that killed him was "obviously some sort of infection or some sot of other catastrophic illness". This was patently untrue but Meier never challenged it."

Because, after his own expert agreed with Dr. Nichols, something the prosecution would never have known had Sidney not interfered in the case and revealed that to the public, he could not. The only people trying to perpetuate ignorance and deception in this case are you and Sidney. If you are calling Dr. Nichols ignorant or deceiving you are projecting your own problems on him.; March 7, 2018 at 3:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Right on kenhyderal. Udaman.; March 7, 2018 at 3:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Right on Ubes. Udaman.; March 7, 2018 at 3:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Left out Man. UdaUbes; March 7, 2018 at 3:37 AM
Anonymous said...: dKenhyderal:

Let's rephrase.

If Crystal not stabbed Reginald Daye while he was trying to leave the scene, how would he have ended up in the hospital, cut off from his alleged(by you) massive daily dose of ethanol?; March 7, 2018 at 3:39 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Let's rephrase again:

If Crystal had not stabbed Reginald Daye on April 3, 2011, how would ha have wound up in the hospital deprived o his alleged requirement for a massive daily dose of alcohol. If he actually were such a committed chronic alcoholic, how would he have been exposed to a life threatening episode of DTs had he not been stabbed.

Did anything else happen on April 3, 2011 which would have put him in the hospital?; March 7, 2018 at 6:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Over and out man. UbesdaPubes.; March 7, 2018 at 7:03 AM
kenhyderal said...: @ Guiowen 9:41: "They have no bread? Then let them eat cake"- Marie Antoinette; March 7, 2018 at 7:24 AM
Anonymous said...: You all are making this why to complicated:

1.) Mangum was sexually assaulted at the Lacrosse party. #metoo says it is so.

2.) Mangum stabbed Daye in self defense.

You will not change Sidney's take on this no matter how many times you ask questions or state facts.; March 7, 2018 at 7:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous March 7, 2018 at 7:34 AM said...

"You all are making this why to complicated:

1.) Mangum was sexually assaulted at the Lacrosse party. #metoo says it is so.

2.) Mangum stabbed Daye in self defense.

You will not change Sidney's take on this no matter how many times you ask questions or state facts."

Sidney and Kenny both develop cases of DENY DENY DENY whenever exposed to the truth and get bound up in denying the truth that they end up affirming the truth. That makes the effort worth something.

If you are thinking this is all inappropriate you could advise Sidney and Kenny to cease their vicious yet laughable efforts and take down this blog.; March 7, 2018 at 8:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Guiowen 9:41:"

Which was:

"Kenhyderal, Why don't you just go to Durham, hire a lawyer (maybe even drag Nifong out of retirement) and file for an appeal? The bunch of us here are just tired of listening to all your whining.I'll repeat something I said before: I'll forgive your racism if only you'll stop whining."

Kenny's irrelevant reply:

"They have no bread? Then let them eat cake"- Marie Antoinette".

Which means only that every lawyer, including Nifong, knows Crystal has no grounds for an appeal.; March 7, 2018 at 8:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Guiowen said:

"Kenhyderal,
Why don't you just go to Durham, hire a lawyer (maybe even drag Nifong out of retirement) and file for an appeal?"

Because Nifong is not licensed to practice law and can never be licensed again due to his massive misconduct in the Duke lacrosse prosecutions.

It should be noted, too, that Sid is not only NOT an expert in medicine, he isn't licensed to practice medicine. He hasn't been licensed for years.

Mangum's case has been fully appealed. There are no further appeals that can be filed. Sid has yet to articulate a valid basis for a court to review her case or overturn her conviction. He never will because there isn't one, except in his mind. All that is left is for her to serve out her sentence.

The anonymous poster at 7:34 AM is entirely right. Regardless of the facts and the law, you will not change Sid's belief in Mangum's innocence, or his belief that she was the victim of some crime at the Duke lacrosse party (instead of the victimizer). Sid's belief in Mangum is an article of faith. It's a religion, or perhaps more accurately, an obsession, for him. He will not be swayed by reality or reason. It is pointless to try. He will just have to deal with reality.; March 7, 2018 at 8:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal, if Crystal and Sidney and you have as much support as you allege, why would a go fund me campaign work?; March 7, 2018 at 8:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Address the issue:

What was the specific event which put Reginald Daye in the hospital and cut him off frm his allegd need for a daily massive dose of ethanol?

Coming up with some hypothetical scenario does not in any way address this issue.; March 7, 2018 at 8:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

I meant to say, Kenhyderal, if Crystal and Sidney and you have as much support as you allege, why would a go fund me campaign NOT work?

Again I get distracted when typing.; March 7, 2018 at 8:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous March 7, 2018 at 8:06 AM:

:The anonymous poster at 7:34 AM is entirely right. Regardless of the facts and the law, you will not change Sid's belief in Mangum's innocence, or his belief that she was the victim of some crime at the Duke lacrosse party (instead of the victimizer). Sid's belief in Mangum is an article of faith. It's a religion, or perhaps more accurately, an obsession, for him."

It is an obsession, nothing more, an obsession that a woman he purportedly likes abd respect had been brutally gang raped.

"He will not be swayed by reality or reason. It is pointless to try. He will just have to deal with reality."

Kenny, does that previous paragraph not indicate that Sidney is delusional.

From http://www.dictionary.com/browse/delusional:
"1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:
Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.

2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness: He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him."

Has Sidney not alleged on multiple occasions he has been the victim of conspiracies?

Case in point:

Sidney's lawsuits against Duke:

Sidney said that he had wrote letters to the President of Duke and the Dean of Duke Law School that he intended to attend the Breyer event. He alleged that either those individuals or individuals in their offices read the letter and then conspired to discriminate against him.

I asked Sidney if he had any evidence anyone in those offices ever read his letters. He acknowledged he had no factual proof that anyone in those offices ever did. Then he said something to the effect that any reasonable man would surmise that Duke did conspire to discriminate against him.

Second case in point:

Sidney has touted his legal expertise, a specific instance being his boadt that he would embarrass the state bar when it investigated him for practicing law without a license-after the Bar had him enjoined from practicing law without a license he claimed he was just trash talking.

Finally, Sidney has posted, no one has ever proved Crystal lied when she alleged she had been raped, which is not the reality of a criminal case. The reality of a criminal case is, the Prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Crystal told the truth.; March 7, 2018 at 8:35 AM
guiowen said...: If I understand Kenhyderal correctly, he feels he is the equivalent of cake, whereas Sidney is like bread -- and in fact, Sidney has run out of ideas -- that's what "They have no bread" means to him.
I guess it's foolish to expect the cake to travel.; March 7, 2018 at 9:06 AM
A Reasonable Man said...: Kenhyderal- You misattributed the "Let them eat cake" quote...It's known that Rousseau made a similar comment in his autobiography, Confessions,where he states that "a great princess" once said it....The "great princess" he's referring to is probably Maria Theresa of Spain.

Rousseau completed his autobiography in 1769. Marie Antoinette didn't arrive at Versailles until 1770. It's highly doubtful Rousseau was even aware of her (let alone aware enough to quote her) prior to her arrival in Versailles.

Consider yourself enlightened.; March 7, 2018 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney,
I hope you've seen what Kenhyderal thinks of you: you are the bread to his cake.; March 7, 2018 at 9:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Maybe Sidney thinks he is the icing on Kenny's cake?; March 7, 2018 at 9:54 AM
Anonymous said...: A Reasonable Man March 7, 2018 at 9:32 AM;

Kenny's usual response to something like this is to either duck the comment or come up with some irrelevant non issue which he thinks gives him a pass for what he said.; March 7, 2018 at 10:24 AM
kenhyderal said...: A Reasonable Man said: "Consider yourself enlightened"................ Thanks for sourcing that, famous oft quoted, saying. I assume you, unlike Guiowen and Dr. Anonymous, understand that it is sarcastically used against those of privilege and means to suggest they have no appreciation or empathy for the disadvantaged; March 7, 2018 at 1:37 PM
guiowen said...: Oh!
Isn't Kenny clever! He can make up any saying he wants, and explain it any way he wants!; March 7, 2018 at 2:00 PM
guiowen said...: Kenny,
You still haven't explained why you refuse to go to Durham.
Someone said that there is probably an arrest warrant out aqainst you. Is that true?; March 7, 2018 at 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Interesting comparison:

Sidney : Kenhyderal :: bread : cake.; March 7, 2018 at 2:27 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Guiowen: https://www.britannica.com/story/did-marie-antoinette-really-say-let-them-eat-cake; March 7, 2018 at 3:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Wow! Kenny can look up things in the Encyclopaedia Britannica! I'm in awe, Kenny!; March 7, 2018 at 3:18 PM
guiowen said...: So, Kenny,
Is it true that there's a warrant out for your arrest? How did you manage that? Did you beat someone up for denigrating sweet Crystal?
So you are indeed a fighter!; March 7, 2018 at 3:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Udaman g.; March 7, 2018 at 3:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"A Reasonable Man said: "Consider yourself enlightened"................ Thanks for sourcing that, famous oft quoted, saying. I assume you, unlike Guiowen and Dr. Anonymous, understand that it is sarcastically used against those of privilege and means to suggest they have no appreciation or empathy for the disadvantaged"

No it isn't. You use it to express your frustrations that innocent Caucasian(William Cohan's description) were not wrongfully convicted for raping Crystal Mangum, a crime for which you yourself concede you can provide zero factual proof, a crime of which you believe the accused should have been convicted on the word of the false accuser, a Scottsboro attitude.; March 7, 2018 at 3:58 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Guiowen : "I'm making a list and checking it twice"; March 7, 2018 at 3:59 PM
Anonymous said...: @kenhyderal : “I’m going to give you some advice: don’t be such a whiny asshole. It makes you look weak.”
― Mimi Jean Pamfiloff, Fugly; March 7, 2018 at 4:08 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ Race obsessed Dr. Anonymous; Learn to distinguish facts from opinions. You can state a known fact and then provide us with your biased opinion of it's interpretation. Only a Jury can make the binding determination and, though they often get it wrong, especially if they selectively don't get to hear all of the known facts with counsels critical interpretation of these facts and with or without expert opinions on these facts, their decision, until overturned prevails. Without that trial, the Duke Lacrosse Players will forever in the mind of many be guilty.; March 7, 2018 at 4:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"@ Guiowen: https://www.britannica.com/story/did-marie-antoinette-really-say-let-them-eat-cake"

Anonymous March 7, 2018 at 3:18 PM

"Wow! Kenny can look up things in the Encyclopaedia Britannica! I'm in awe, Kenny!"

Isn't it a little curious that Kenny can not or will not look up something like wrongful prosecution or false accusations.; March 7, 2018 at 4:20 PM
kenhyderal said...: @ MJP Don't be so F-ugly That's not romantic.; March 7, 2018 at 4:37 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
Must you use such words? Admittedly, after you told some other guy to "anda a cagar", it's hardly a surprise. But still....; March 7, 2018 at 4:58 PM
guiowen said...: "will forever in the mind of many be guilty."

Kenny, are you one of those who think three is "many"?; March 7, 2018 at 5:08 PM
guiowen said...: The wonderful three:
Kenhyderal, Sidney Harr, and Crybully Tinfoil; March 7, 2018 at 5:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Part 1:

"@ Race obsessed Dr. Anonymous; Learn to distinguish facts from opinions. You can state a known fact and then provide us with your biased opinion of it's interpretation."

I have learned to discriminate facts from biased racist distortions of the facts. Neither you nor Sidney have.

You did post a statement to the effect that you did not need evidence that Crystal had been raped which does, in spite of your attempts to DENY DENY DENY, say you believe the Duke defendants are guilty solely based Crystal's word. I stand my ground on this, that you are as racist as the persecutors of the Scottsboro boys, because of the commonality of your attitude with the racist guilt presuming attitude of the Scottsboro persecutors-or are you claiming you are not racist because you are black and the men you persecute are Caucasian(William Cohan's description).

"Only a Jury can make the binding determination"

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong wrong and wrong again. Like Sidney you ARE willfully ignorant of fundamental features of the US Justice system, that a criminal defendant is PRESUMED innocent until and unless proven guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and only the prosecutor, not the defendants has the obligation to prove. Rules of prosecutorial conduct as laid down by the ABA say a prosecutor SHOULD NOT take a case to trial if he can not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When there is zero evidence that a crime ever happened, which was the case in the Duke Rape Hoax, the only possibility was not, no chance to prove beyond a reasonable doubt-the only possibility was that the accused were innocent. You are doing another iteration of the claim, Crystal had a right to have her claim of rape decided in a criminal trial in which the defendants were charged. She did not. And if a trial is the only venue in which a defendant cold be shown to be innocent or guilty, then explain why Sidney was saying that the state should dismiss the case for murder against Crystal and never take her to trial. Also, if a jury makes a BINDING(your word) decision, how can a jury's decision be overturned on appeal? Why is Sidney trying to get the Jury verdict overturned?; March 7, 2018 at 5:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Part 2:

"and, though they often get it wrong, especially if they selectively don't get to hear all of the known facts with counsels critical interpretation of these facts and with or without expert opinions on these facts, their decision, until overturned prevails."

Nifong, in the Duke Lacrosse case deliberately tried to get a jury to get it wrong and you are in willful denial of that. So what you say about Juries getting it wrong is meaningless.

Nifong deliberately tried to get a Jury to get it wrong by: charging without probable cause; by manufacturing evidence against the defendants(the improperly conducted lineup in which Crystal identified as her accusers three men who could not have perpetrated the crime which Crystal alleged); by trying to intimidate witnesses whose statements supported the innocence of the Lacrosse defendants(Moez Elmostafa and Kim Roberts/Pittman); by trying to intimidate individuals to bring forth incriminating testimony when they had no incriminating testimony to offer(the bogus complaints of a blue wall of silence, the threats to prosecute those who did not come forth with incriminating information for aiding and abetting); concealing evidence which unequivocally exonerated the accused(the finding that the male DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of the accused). In the face of all that, you called Nifong a prosecutor who was only seeking justice.

Regarding the Crystal Mangum trial for the murder of Reginald Daye, what you and Sidney offer as facts left out are the opinions of two non legal, non medical experts on matters which require medical or legal expertise, or both to be valid. Your non expert opinions are meaningless and of no legal weight(Sidney can explain his version of what that means).

"Without that trial, the Duke Lacrosse Players will forever in the mind of many be guilty."

So?

In the Nifong ethics trial, one of the Duke defense lawyers said, who cares what Nancy Grace thinks. Who cares what the willfully mindless and ignorant believe.

In the minds of the knowledgeable, the Duke defendants are innocent. Only in the minds of the willfully mindless and ignorant are the Lacrosse defendants guilty. Who cares about you and Sidney, the sum total of the mindless and ignorant racist guilt presumers believe. I do not say think because the mindless and ignorant are not capable of thinking.; March 7, 2018 at 5:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Udaman Ubes.; March 7, 2018 at 7:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny or Sidney or both continue to post anonymously to create the illusion that they have support.; March 7, 2018 at 7:51 PM
The Great Kilgo said...: Kenhyderal,
Please help me! This fellow shhoto id';kkn f; March 7, 2018 at 9:04 PM
Ubes said...: Also,
Kenhyderal!
Wirst du deinen Freund Kilgo helfen? Bitte komm hier!; March 7, 2018 at 9:09 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Must you use such words? Admittedly, after you told some other guy to "anda a cagar", it's hardly a surprise. But still...."....................... This poster, Guiowen, is quick with sarcasm and disingenuous outrage but puns go right over his head. Explain it all to him Ms. Pamfiloff. B.T. W. I don't read Romance Novels but from reviews, I've seen, your heroes are not exactly stout-hearted paragons of masculinity; March 7, 2018 at 9:43 PM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: The wonderful three: Kenhyderal, Sidney Harr, and Crybully Tinfoil...............................Along with African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans and Middle Eastern Americans soon to be the majority.; March 7, 2018 at 9:50 PM
guiowen said...: Good old Kenny;
Tells some guy "anda a cagar"
Talks about people's underwear.
Accuses people of making up stories so as to make him look bad.
Complains about ad hominem attacks whenever he's caught in a lie.
Makes up words, doesn't even look to see whether they exist, and insists they must be in the dictionary.
Translates American songs into Spanish and claims Cervantes wrote them.
Boasts about how he belongs to the "soon to be the majority" as if these people were all going to back him up.
But, when he could actually do something here in the U.S.A., prefers to loll around on the beach in Abu Dhabi or wherever.; March 7, 2018 at 10:33 PM
guiowen said...: Good old Kenny,
I guess you've made your racism clear for all to see. Looking forward to being in the majority?; March 7, 2018 at 10:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Guiowen said: The wonderful three: Kenhyderal, Sidney Harr, and Crybully Tinfoil...............................Along with African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans and Middle Eastern Americans soon to be the majority."

If you mean people who believe the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players are guilty, that is as credible as your claim that Nifong did not have said innocent men indicted for rape.

Yet another iteration of Kenny trying to bulldhit his way through and around facts which do not mesh with his guilt presuming racism.; March 8, 2018 at 2:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Guiowen said: "Must you use such words? Admittedly, after you told some other guy to "anda a cagar", it's hardly a surprise. But still...."....................... This poster, Guiowen, is quick with sarcasm and disingenuous outrage but puns go right over his head. Explain it all to him Ms. Pamfiloff. B.T. W. I don't read Romance Novels but from reviews, I've seen, your heroes are not exactly stout-hearted paragons of masculinity"

Something Kenny says to distract attention away from how the truth goes over his head.; March 8, 2018 at 2:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

Address this issue:

What was the specific event which put Reginald Daye in the hospital, blocked his alleged need for a daily dose of a large amount of ethanol?

You are on record for saying that ANY such event would have put him at risk of potentially fatal delerium tremens.; March 8, 2018 at 3:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Sidney, how about you address the issue:

What was the specific event which put Reginald Daye in the hospital and interfered with his alleged need for a massive daily dose of ethanol?

Your wack-lyte Kenny says ANY such incident would have put Reginald Daye at risk for a potentially lethal episode of DTs.

Hint: the incident did not involve self defense on the part of Crystal.; March 8, 2018 at 3:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal

"Guiowen said: "Must you use such words? Admittedly, after you told some other guy to "anda a cagar", it's hardly a surprise. But still...."....................... This poster, Guiowen, is quick with sarcasm and disingenuous outrage but puns go right over his head. Explain it all to him Ms. Pamfiloff. B.T. W. I don't read Romance Novels but from reviews, I've seen, your heroes are not exactly stout-hearted paragons of masculinity"

Do you ever read anything other than what you perceive as supporting of your guilt presuming racism? If you do, you have provided no factual evidence of that, just like you have never provided any factual evidence that Crystal had been raped.; March 8, 2018 at 4:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr:

What factual evidence have you ever provided that Crystal told the truth when shealeged she had been raped, ever provided any factual evidence that the Lacrosse players were guilty. Each and every time you proclaim that Crystal was the "victim/accuser in the "Duke Rape Case" you proclaim that the Lacrosse defendants are guilty.

What legal weight do your multiple proclamations of guilt have?; March 8, 2018 at 5:20 AM
kenhyderal said...: Guiowen said: "Boasts about how he belongs to the "soon to be the majority"................I'm not an American.; March 8, 2018 at 10:09 AM
kenhyderal said...: Dr. Anonymous said: "Do you ever read anything other than what you perceive as supporting of your guilt presuming racism? If you do, you have provided no factual evidence of that:...............................Huh? More of the fractured logic of Dr. Anonymous. Is he asking me to prove what I've read?? Does he think I only read things I agree with? I've read all the illogical things he posts and came away with no enlightenment whatsoever.; March 8, 2018 at 10:19 AM
A Reasonable Man said...: The original comment (as best as I can tell) was that "Without [a] trial, the Duke Lacrosse Players will forever in the mind of many be guilty."

Then further discussion identified the "many" as Kenhyderal, Sidney, and someone named Tinfoil...

In response to that, Kenhyderal stated that in addition to the initial 3, the group would include:

"....African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans and Middle Eastern Americans soon to be the majority."

My question for Kenhyderal is -- how did you come to the conclusion that these specific groups would consider the Duke LAX players guilty?

Obviously, both Mike Nifong and William Cohan do not fall into any of these groups, yet the fall squarely into the "something happened" group.

How do you account for the Nifong/Chohan absence from your list of groups that would consider the Duke LAX players guilty?

I look forward to your reply.; March 8, 2018 at 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...: Kenhyderal:

"Dr. Anonymous said: If you do, you have provided no factual evidence of that:...............................Huh? More of the fractured logic of Dr. Anonymous."

Huh yourself

"Is he asking me to prove what I've read??"

Take a class in reading comprehension, as has been suggested to you. I said, and I repeat, "Do you ever read anything other than what you perceive as supporting of your guilt presuming racism? If you do, you have provided no factual evidence of that"

Does he think I only read things I agree with?

I think you read themand then go into denial and then resort to bullshit as a way of finding your way through and around facts you do not like. Comprende? I doubt it.

"I've read all the illogical things he posts and came away with no enlightenment whatsoever."

Since you have never showed any capability to understand what is and what is not logical, that statement is irrelevant. You obviously believe Crystal had been raped in the party but you concede you can give no factual evidence. That is not logical. That you come away with no enlightenment is that you are willfully resistant to enlightenment, just like your mentor Sidney.

It is like Adolf Hitler sitting in his bunker in Berlin in 1945 and saying, Ich kann nict veerstanden, warum wir das Krieg verloren.

HEIL KENNY.; March 8, 2018 at 12:01 PM
guiowen said...: Kenhyderal,
I know you're not an American. I think your post makes it clear that you see things in terms of race: that the non-Caucasians will no doubt agree with you.
I was aware that you are a racist; I simply did not imagine that you would make your racism so evident.
Non-caucasians agree with Kenny; Caucasians disagree. Why don't you just say: Non-caucasians good, Caucasians bad.
4 legs good; 2 legs bad! Animal Farm; March 8, 2018 at 12:01 PM
guiowen said...: But cheer up, Kenny, we're willing to forgive your racism if only you'll stop whining.; March 8, 2018 at 12:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny, your last comment shows again that you like to duck and dodge and evade and avoid issues you do not like, e.g. the issue of what was the specific event which put Reginald Daye in the hospital and cut him off from his alleged dependence on a daily massive dose of ethanot and put allegedly at risk of a potentially fatal episode of Delerium Tremens.; March 8, 2018 at 12:04 PM
Anonymous said...: A Reasonable Man, I must stand corrected. The mindless and ignorant include more than Sidney and Kenny. They also include William Cohan Mike Nifong.; March 8, 2018 at 12:07 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 317 Newer› Newest»

Thursday, March 1, 2018

Harr's humble, yet brilliant opinion -- Daniel Meier: Expert or quid pro quo?

317 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me