justice4nifong: Roy Cooper's refusal to be confronted by truths of Mangum's case: Parts One and Two

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

Roy Cooper's refusal to be confronted by truths of Mangum's case: Parts One and Two

71 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
Could it be that all your arguments are so poor that you cannot persuade any of these young lawyers to support you?

September 12, 2019 at 7:47 PM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

Shirley you jest. My arguments are strong and supported by evidence from prosecution discovery, trial transcripts, news articles, and other documents.

Actually, I would not recommend a young and/or rookie attorney take up in defense of Mangum's case because by so doing it could very likely put his/her career in jeopardy before it gets off the ground. The young attorneys are probably smart enough, or have received sage counsel, to avoid Mangum's cases... as have veteran lawyers.; September 19, 2019 at 3:48 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: PART ONE:
Anonymous Kenny Supporter said...
Is it your opinion, and the opinion of the lawyer commenters that the esophageal intubation had nothing to do with Daye's death... That it was not a proximate cause of death and not a direct cause of Daye's brain-death?

This is an utterly moronic question.

Of course I believe the esophageal intubation was a proximate cause of Daye's death. Walt, Dr. Cagliari, Abe and every other commenter all believe the esophageal intubation was a proximate cause of Daye's death.

Whether the esophageal intubation was a proximate cause of Daye's death is not at issue. No informed person believes otherwise. .

The esophageal intubation and the removal of Daye from life support are BOTH proximate causes of Daye's death. There can be more than one proximate cause of death.

Duke Medical had a civil liability exposure to Daye's family from the esophageal intubation. Whether Mangum was found guilty of murder or manslaughter or acquitted of those charges does not change any civil liability faced by Duke. The "protection" to Duke you charge Mangum's attorneys with providing was limited to the lack of bad publicity of Duke's horrendous medical care. Your suggestion that Mangum's conviction absolved Duke from civil liability demonstrates either your fundamental misunderstanding of the legal question or your dishonesty.

The legal question in this case is whether the stab wound is ANOTHER proximate cause of Daye's death or whether the the esophageal intubation was an intervening cause. Only if the the esophageal intubation was an intervening cause (or there was another intervening cause) would Mangum's criminal liability be extinguished. The conclusion that the stab wound is another proximate cause of Daye's death does not mean that the esophageal intubation is no longer a proximate cause.

Hey, Kenny Supporter.

Your comment is astute when stating that "No informed person believes otherwise. .(that the esophageal intubation was a proximal cause of Daye's death)." The only individuals who are informed about the esophageal intubation are those who visit this blog site. The mainstream media went out of its way to conceal the esophageal intubation from the public. The jurors at Mangum's trial were likewise uninformed as attorneys for both sides made no mention of the esophageal intubation. Trial transcripts will show that the words "esophageal intubation" were never uttered during Mangum's trial.

The reason that the nonfatal abdominal stab wound is not a proximate cause of Daye's death is because brain-death is not a naturally occurring sequence of such an injury... it being important to keep in mind that life-support was electively removed due to Daye's brain-death. The same cannot be said of an esophageal intubation. Esophageal intubation will invariably proceed to brain-death and actual death if not timely recognized and corrected. Had Daye not been intubated in his esophagus by Duke hospital staff, he would more likely than not be alive today.; September 19, 2019 at 4:03 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: PART TWO:

Anonymous Kenny Supporter said...
From an objective and scientific point of view, the stab wound had no nexus to Daye's death or brain-death.

Both Dr. Nichols (in an admittedly shoddy autopsy report) and Dr. Roberts disagree with your medical conclusion. They both concluded that there was a "nexus" to Daye's death.

Your assertion that Mangum has no responsibility for subsequent events because the initial prognosis was for a complete recovery is dishonest. As a retired physician, you know better. While certainly positive news, a prognosis for a complete recovery does not mean that the patient is no longer at risk. Complications can and do occur--even when the initial prognosis is favorable.

The legal question is whether Mangum has any legal responsibility for subsequent events. Walt provided legal precedent in the Welch case that addresses this question. He explained that case law provides that legal liability is NOT extinguished even as a result of malpractice in treating the injuries from the initial wound (or complications resulting from treatment of that wound). You simply rejected that case as precedent, and refused to provide your own case law to support your "common sense" conclusion.

Instead of an honest discussion of a valid legal question, you invent a vast conspiracy. No one can disagree with you for legitimate reasons. Drs. Nichols and Roberts invented a nexus between the stab wound and Daye's death, not because they concluded one existed, but because they conspired to protect Duke (even though Mangum's conviction does not absolve Duke from liability). All of Mangum's attorneys rejected the esophageal intubation as a defense strategy, not because they accepted a legal conclusion that the esophageal intubation does not extinguish Mangum's criminal liability, but because they conspired to protect Duke.

Common sense tells me that Mangum has not been well served by a lay advocate who fundamentally misunderstands the law and provides horrendous legal advice based on that fundamental misunderstanding. It's really that simple.

September 13, 2019 at 6:18 AM

Kenny Supporter, Dr. Nichols' autopsy report was not only shoddy but criminally fraudulent... the reason he's being provided with immunity is because it favored the State prosecution. He not only failed to photographically document his findings, but he fabriacted findings and his conclusion was vague and unsupported. Furthermore, his report made no mention of the esophageal intubation and subsequent cardiac arrest.

Dr. Christena L. Roberts' report was also purposefully inaccurate as it stated twice that Daye was intubated three times (records of the event clearly show he was intubated only twice). By claiming Daye was intubated three times, Dr. Roberts deflected the cause of Daye's cardiac arrest from the esophageal intubation. Her conclusion agreed with Nichols because it was necessary to help support the murder prosecution of Mangum. Although she was hired as a defense expert witness, Dr. Roberts did her best to covertly convict Mangum and shield Duke University Hospital's responsibility in Daye's death.

Concerning the "nexus" in this situation, I have at times clarified by using the term "medical nexus."

As a lay advocate, I have Mangum's best interests at heart, unlike her attorneys, her expert forensic pathologist, the medical examiner, the courts, and the media.

Though my efforts have failed thus far to produce a breakthrough against the dug-in State's vindictive and inhumane position, Mangum would certainly not be in a better place had I not intervened.; September 19, 2019 at 4:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: kenhyderal said...
Before I proffer a correction, can I ask if you believe the esophageal intubation was an intervening cause and if you think Walt and Abe agree with your statement ("From an objective and scientific point of view, the stab wound had no nexus to Daye's death or brain-death"). I did not get the impression from reading their posts that they do. They seem to agree that it was the proximate cause and site Welch, a case with virtually no concordance with Crystal's case. They seem to be in accord, with Nichols statement "she stabbed him he died". Hopefully they will join back in and we can all come to agreement. I like to give the hypothetical; if I shoved an intoxicated Daye who was badgering me and he fell and had a compound fractured of his ankle requiring surgery and that took him to Duke where he had the same fate, would I be guilty of second degree murder?

September 14, 2019 at 9:33 PM

Hey, kenhyderal.

I am under the same impression as you... that neither Walt nor Abe concede that the esophageal intubation was a proximate cause of Daye's death. However, I agree wholeheartedly with your hypothetical; it definitely applies in Mangum's case.; September 19, 2019 at 4:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Based on Walt's discussion of the Welch case, I do not believe that the esophageal intubation was an intervening cause. As I recall, Walt stated that an intervening cause must be deliberate to break liability. As a result, it is clear that Walt does not believe that the intubation was an intervening cause. Based on Abe's comments, I do not believe that he believes it is an intervening cause either.

The quote you falsely attribute to me is from Dr. Harr (I used italics to quote his post; my statements are not italicized). I think it is clear that Walt and Abe do not agree with Dr. Harr's quote. You owe me a second correction.

You have made it clear that you do not find Welch to be appropriate precedent. I look forward to seeing the case law you believe provides the appropriate guidance. If you continue to refuse to provide alternative guidance, I will be forced to continue to accept by default Walt's discussion.

September 15, 2019 at 6:18 AM

Hey, Anony.

For edification let me state that all comments that I copy and paste are not italicized, but I try to distinguish differences when re-posting in my comments.

As for what Abe thinks... maybe he will provide us with clarification.

Also, I agree with kenhyderal that it would be more meaningful if you used a name or handle of some sort so we can distinguish your comments from the other anonys.; September 19, 2019 at 4:49 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT INQUIRY!!

It is obvious that Governor Roy Cooper is two-faced and hypocritical in admonishing Nifong for refusing to accept evidence from Duke Lacrosse defense attorneys while totally ignoring evidence of Mangum's case which I have been trying to present.

A few Questions for consideration related to this shar-video:
(1) Is it acceptable for Cooper, Stein, and Deberry to refuse to hear evidence of innocence?
(2) Do you believe that it is professional or civil for an elected public official to ignore a constituent?
(3) Why do you think Satana Deberry agreed to meet with me prior to her swearing in as Durham district attorney, then once sworn into office ignored me?

Note: I will try to produce a shar-video at least every three-four weeks. Quite time-consuming. The next scheduled topic will be about the NC Court of Appeals and its ruling in Mangum's case.

As you were.; September 19, 2019 at 5:02 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: The next scheduled topic will be about the NC Court of Appeals and its ruling in Mangum's case.

Is this a new ruling? Can you post a link?; September 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid -- You've answered your own questions.

Roy Cooper stated that a prosecutor should welcome information from a defense attorney regarding the innocence of the defendant.

You are not now, nor have you ever been a defense attorney, and as you have been warned numerous times, you cannot represent another person in a court of law. As such, the BEST option for Crystal Mangum is to hire an attorney.

And your jealousy of a child for getting to "interview" Governor Cooper?

Petty.
....As you've "demonstrably demonstrated".; September 20, 2019 at 7:56 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney said;
"The young attorneys are probably smart enough, or have received sage counsel, to avoid Mangum's cases... as have veteran lawyers."

What you have to do is find some lawyer with Nifongian courage. Do you know anyone like that? Maybe Nifong could reapply for his license?; September 22, 2019 at 10:56 AM
Doogie Howser said...: Blogger kenhyderal said...

K Supporter said" When are you going to post the link to Wecht's report?"--------- Hopefully, forthcoming, in due course. Presently withheld for strategic reasons.

September 14, 2019 at 9:30 AM

Kenny,

The time has arrived for you to reveal your secret plan for winning a new trial for Crystal. How many years has it been?; September 22, 2019 at 6:24 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
The next scheduled topic will be about the NC Court of Appeals and its ruling in Mangum's case.

Is this a new ruling? Can you post a link?

September 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

This Opinion by the NC Court of Appeals (case no. 19-19) was filed on August 6, 2019. On September 9, 2019, the NC Court of Appeals issued an Order denying Mangum's Petition for Rehearing En Banc... effectively ending her involvement with that court. If you would like a link to the six-page Opinion let me know and I'll put it on the comment section as soon as I can. Currently Crystal is under a deadline by which to file a Petition for Discretionary Review.; September 23, 2019 at 7:52 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney said;
"The young attorneys are probably smart enough, or have received sage counsel, to avoid Mangum's cases... as have veteran lawyers."

What you have to do is find some lawyer with Nifongian courage. Do you know anyone like that? Maybe Nifong could reapply for his license?

September 22, 2019 at 10:56 AM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

Hah! Do you know of a lawyer with Nifongian courage? Nifongian courage is exceedingly rare. Even I do not possess Nifongian courage. I can boldly advocate on Mangum's behalf because I cannot be fired from a job, or my livelihood and/or career threatened.

Mike Nifong is not interested in practicing law in the future and has no desire to have his license re-instated.; September 23, 2019 at 7:58 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Kenny Supporter.

I have never heard of the term "Johnson." Can you give me a definition? Thanks.; September 23, 2019 at 7:59 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
So, after all you've done for him, Nifong won't take the time to help Crystal?
Rather ungrateful, if you ask me.; September 23, 2019 at 8:46 AM
Kenny Supporter said...: Hey, Kenny Supporter.

I have never heard of the term "Johnson." Can you give me a definition? Thanks.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Can you give me context and tell me why you are asking me?; September 23, 2019 at 10:20 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Kenny Supporter said...
Hey, Kenny Supporter.

I have never heard of the term "Johnson." Can you give me a definition? Thanks.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Can you give me context and tell me why you are asking me?

September 23, 2019 at 10:20 AM

Hey, Kenny Supporter.

To quote former Texas Governor Rick Perry, "Oopsie!" I made a boo-boo. I should have addressed my question to "kenhyderal supporter" instead of "Kenny Supporter." My bad.
Sorry about that.

The question had to do with a kenhyderal supporter comment which was temporarily withheld awaiting further clarification.; September 24, 2019 at 4:06 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid -- You've answered your own questions.

Roy Cooper stated that a prosecutor should welcome information from a defense attorney regarding the innocence of the defendant.

You are not now, nor have you ever been a defense attorney, and as you have been warned numerous times, you cannot represent another person in a court of law. As such, the BEST option for Crystal Mangum is to hire an attorney.

And your jealousy of a child for getting to "interview" Governor Cooper?

Petty.
....As you've "demonstrably demonstrated".

September 20, 2019 at 7:56 AM

Hey, Anony.

First, apologies for not posting this comment immediately when received. There are times when I attempt to publish comments received on my phone and for some reason they aren't posted. At other times I may get distracted after opening a comment and forget to post it... later believing that it was.

Now with regards to the comment: Is it your position that the attorney general or anyone in authority should ignore evidence of innocence unless it comes directly from a defense attorney? Is it your position that Nifong would have been justified in ignoring evidence presented by the Duke Lacrosse defendants instead of their lawyers? If a non-attorney eyewitness to a crime wants to give information to the attorney general or the authorities, is it your position that they should refuse?

My position is that the attorney general or his staff should hear all evidence from all parties willing to offer it. What is the downside? I see none.

As far as Mangum hiring a lawyer, she has tried and so have I. I tried to get assistance from the legal staffs of the NAACP and ACLU, as well as innocent projects such as the NC Innocence Inquiry Commission (under two different executive directors), the NC Center on Actual Innocence, and the innocence project at NCCU Law School (Mangum being a graduate of NCCU.) I even went to the private sector writing to defense attorneys whom I believed fiercely fought for their clients (Alex Charns and Joseph Arbour to name a few). Also keep in mind these two facts: (1) the Durham Public Defender's Office refused to represent Mangum from the beginning; and (2) the NC Prisoner Legal Services abandoned Mangum after doing nothing for her... not even telling her that she had legal grounds for filing a malicious prosecution civil complaint. Finally, lawyers usually charge money for their services... a big road-block as Durham Senior Resident Judge Orlando Hudson denied Mangum the ability to file Pro pauperis.

What should be evident from Mangum's past experiences is that it's not enough to be represented by an attorney. She needs an attorney who has her best interests as a priority and not those of Duke University Hospital and the State witnesses who committed perjury.

Regarding fifth-grader Grace Coflin, you couldn't have misinterpreted her inclusion in the shar-video worse. I find her to be an adorable young lady with more integrity and higher moral character than the governor. I think she's a wonderful girl and I am glad Cooper gave her special attention. She deserved it. I applaud her by positively incorporating her in my video. Also, jealousy is not in my DNA makeup. Hah.; September 24, 2019 at 4:37 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
So, after all you've done for him, Nifong won't take the time to help Crystal?
Rather ungrateful, if you ask me.

September 23, 2019 at 8:46 AM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

I will never forget that when I first approached Mike Nifong with my intention of forming a committee on his behalf, he advised me to carefully reconsider as he was concerned about blow-back to me for taking a position supporting him. His concerns were justified as Duke University tried to arrest me and the mainstream media has tried to discredit me... not to mention the half million dollar tax bill more than two decades old.

What Mike, like Crystal and now O.J., understands is that he is in the cross-hairs under the microscope by the State, media, and others. An example would be the efforts to find past cases of his with impropriety. The only case found was that involving Darryl Howard, which in my opinion was worthless. The case was so weak (with Barry Scheck realizing that Nifong would be a credible witness) that Howard's counsel decided not to call Nifong to the stand during Howard's hearing).

The courts have shown their willingness to prosecute Nifong for any misstep, regardless of how trivial. His so-called contempt of court 24-hour sentence being an example.

Because of the above, I have not even attempted to get Mike Nifong involved in helping Crystal Mangum. Especially since he no longer has attorney status, giving me any legal advice would be grounds enough for the state and media to descend on him like vultures on roadkill.; September 24, 2019 at 4:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Well Sid -- I can only use Cooper's words:
"If you're a prosecutor and the defense attorney
is willing to come in and give you information
about the case...give you waht the have -- the you
say 'Yes. Please come in and let me know what your
case is.' "

This appears to be the standard you are holding him against. My point still stands -- You're not a lawyer, and have no legal standing in Crystal Mangum's murder trial. Why should he (or anyone) have to meet with you?

With regard to Nifong, it apparently didn't matter where the statements regarding the Duke LAX defendants came from -- he was going to ignore it anyway. It's my understanding that, once a defendant has a lawyer, the defendant will not give statements to the prosecution without that lawyer present....So it's a silly point to argue anyway.

With regard to eye-witnesses, I would defer you to one of the lawyers that post here.
I will state that you are not an eye-witness, as you never saw the stabbing, nor the subsequent treatment of Mr. Daye.

And you still come across as jealous that a child got to "interview" the Governor, while he hasn't met with you. Petty.; September 24, 2019 at 8:26 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: If you would like a link to the six-page Opinion let me know and I'll put it on the comment section as soon as I can.

Yes, please, I'd like to see it.; September 24, 2019 at 11:55 AM
Kenny Supporter said...: https://appellate.nccourts.org/opinion-filings/?c=coa

Excerpt below.

Analysis

Statutes of limitations are inflexible and unyielding. They operate inexorably without reference to the merits of plaintiff’s cause of action. They are statutes of repose, intended to require that litigation be initiated within the prescribed time or not at all.

The purpose of a statute of limitations is to afford security against stale demands, not to deprive anyone of his just rights by lapse of time. In some instances, it may operate to bar the maintenance of meritorious causes of action. When confronted with such a cause, the urge is strong to write into the statute exceptions that do not appear therein. In such case, we must bear in mind Lord Campbell’s caution: “Hard cases must not make bad law.” Congleton v. City of Asheboro, 8 N.C. App. 571, 573-74, 174 S.E.2d 870, 872 (1970) (purgandum). This is not a hard case...

Plaintiff argues that fraud or mistake by her attorneys tolled the statute of limitations. She asserts that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(9) creates an exception to the statute of limitations. Section 1-52(9) simply states that a claim for relief based upon fraud or mistake is subject to the three-year statute of limitations from the date of discovery of the fraud or mistake. This neither creates a new cause of action nor does it grant an exception to the statute of limitations.

Plaintiff filed her malicious prosecution claim after the three-year limitation period, and Section 1-52 does not extend this period. The trial court did not err when it dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, and we affirm.; September 24, 2019 at 5:14 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
If you would like a link to the six-page Opinion let me know and I'll put it on the comment section as soon as I can.

Yes, please, I'd like to see it.

September 24, 2019 at 11:55 AM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

Kenny Supporter already provided a link and excerpt of the NC COA Opinion. This is the LINK I produced for you. Disregard the incorrect page headings which have since been corrected.

This Opinion will be covered and dissected completely in the next shar-video which I hope to have uploaded within three weeks.; September 25, 2019 at 3:32 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Kenny Supporter said...
https://appellate.nccourts.org/opinion-filings/?c=coa

Excerpt below.

Analysis

Statutes of limitations are inflexible and unyielding. They operate inexorably without reference to the merits of plaintiff’s cause of action. They are statutes of repose, intended to require that litigation be initiated within the prescribed time or not at all.

The purpose of a statute of limitations is to afford security against stale demands, not to deprive anyone of his just rights by lapse of time. In some instances, it may operate to bar the maintenance of meritorious causes of action. When confronted with such a cause, the urge is strong to write into the statute exceptions that do not appear therein. In such case, we must bear in mind Lord Campbell’s caution: “Hard cases must not make bad law.” Congleton v. City of Asheboro, 8 N.C. App. 571, 573-74, 174 S.E.2d 870, 872 (1970) (purgandum). This is not a hard case...

Plaintiff argues that fraud or mistake by her attorneys tolled the statute of limitations. She asserts that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(9) creates an exception to the statute of limitations. Section 1-52(9) simply states that a claim for relief based upon fraud or mistake is subject to the three-year statute of limitations from the date of discovery of the fraud or mistake. This neither creates a new cause of action nor does it grant an exception to the statute of limitations.

Plaintiff filed her malicious prosecution claim after the three-year limitation period, and Section 1-52 does not extend this period. The trial court did not err when it dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, and we affirm.

September 24, 2019 at 5:14 PM

Hey, Kenny Supporter.

Thank you for providing the excerpt and link to the NC Court of Appeals opinion. My next shar-video will be laser-focus devoted to it. It'll be a real eye-opener.; September 25, 2019 at 3:35 AM
Kenny Supporter said...: Dr. Harr:

I will respond to the questions you raised relating to this star-video.

(1) Is it acceptable for Cooper, Stein, and Deberry to refuse to hear evidence of innocence?

I believe that Cooper, Stein and Deberry would all be interested in definitive proof of innocence in a case in their jurisdiction. However, despite your repeated assertions, YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED PROOF OF INNOCENCE of Ms. Mangum's second degree murder conviction. You have conclusively proven that an esophageal intubation was a cause of his death, but you have not proven that Ms. Mangum's legal responsibility has been severed. Indeed, you have refused to conduct any legal research and cite any cases that support your conclusion. You prefer simply to respond to your critics with ad hominem attacks, labeling them stupid and/or dishonest, simply because they disagree with you.

(2) Do you believe that it is professional or civil for an elected public official to ignore a constituent?

As a practical matter, it is not possible for an elected public official to meet with or respond to every constituent who seeks attention. Requests must be prioritized. Over the past several years, you have completely destroyed whatever credibility you once may have had. You have embraced ridiculous and wide ranging conspiracy theories. Declining to conduct any legal research and spurning the advise offered by lawyers on this blog, you have pursued asinine legal theories which have been consistently rejected in the courts.

(3) Why do you think Satana Deberry agreed to meet with me prior to her swearing in as Durham district attorney, then once sworn into office ignored me?

Although I do not know Satana Deberry, I expect that prior to her swearing in she agreed informally to meet with you without much consideration. After she assumed her responsibilities, your request was more formal. I expect that she conducted some research and same to the conclusions discussed above in (2).; September 25, 2019 at 11:30 AM
Dr. Caligari said...: What's significant about the Court of Appeals' decision is not that Mangum lost, but that she lost for exactly the reason that I predicted as soon as Dr. Harr posted his ghost-written brief. Mangum did not bring a lawsuit for "fraud or mistake"; she brought a lawsuit for malicious prosecution, so the "fraud or mistake" statute had no application. The fact that I could predict that reasoning shows that the court was simply following well-established law, and not looking for some excuse to rule against Mangum.; September 25, 2019 at 11:43 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: PART ONE

Anonymous Kenny Supporter said...
Dr. Harr:

I will respond to the questions you raised relating to this star-video.

(1) Is it acceptable for Cooper, Stein, and Deberry to refuse to hear evidence of innocence?

I believe that Cooper, Stein and Deberry would all be interested in definitive proof of innocence in a case in their jurisdiction. However, despite your repeated assertions, YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED PROOF OF INNOCENCE of Ms. Mangum's second degree murder conviction. You have conclusively proven that an esophageal intubation was a cause of his death, but you have not proven that Ms. Mangum's legal responsibility has been severed. Indeed, you have refused to conduct any legal research and cite any cases that support your conclusion. You prefer simply to respond to your critics with ad hominem attacks, labeling them stupid and/or dishonest, simply because they disagree with you.

(2) Do you believe that it is professional or civil for an elected public official to ignore a constituent?

As a practical matter, it is not possible for an elected public official to meet with or respond to every constituent who seeks attention. Requests must be prioritized. Over the past several years, you have completely destroyed whatever credibility you once may have had. You have embraced ridiculous and wide ranging conspiracy theories. Declining to conduct any legal research and spurning the advise offered by lawyers on this blog, you have pursued asinine legal theories which have been consistently rejected in the courts.

(3) Why do you think Satana Deberry agreed to meet with me prior to her swearing in as Durham district attorney, then once sworn into office ignored me?

Although I do not know Satana Deberry, I expect that prior to her swearing in she agreed informally to meet with you without much consideration. After she assumed her responsibilities, your request was more formal. I expect that she conducted some research and same to the conclusions discussed above in (2).

September 25, 2019 at 11:30 AM

Hey, Kenny Supporter.

One thing that I admired about former Wake County D.A. Colon Willoughby was that he always personally responded to letters I sent him, whether a response was expected or not. It showed me professionalism and courtesy that is absent these days. Cooper, Stein, and Deberry have elected to ignore me. Not even the courtesy or courage to respond and deny my request to meet; with or without a reason. It wouldn't take much for a staff member to do the work. And, I have made it clear that I would be willing to meet with a high ranking official on their staffs.

Also, in you (1) response you accused me of ad hominem attacks. That is not true. I have never labeled any commenter or stupid or dishonest. I would be interested in an example to back up your claim on this.; September 26, 2019 at 7:00 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: PART TWO

Regarding question number (1), how can Cooper, Stein, or Deberry evaluate my position when they refuse to hear what I have to say? They, or their staff, won't even give me an audience. This is what I find particularly galling.

Regarding (2), I do not believe that there are many individual constituents who have attempted to contact the governor, A.G., or Durham D.A. Even if they had, it would be an infinite amount of the whole of those under jurisdiction. Besides, these elected officials have large staffs, and as I had always mentioned, I would accept an interview with them as well. I offered to meet at a time and place of convenience, and it is incredulous that none could find time over a seven year period.

Regarding (3), Satana Deberry clearly lacks the courage to confront me and the truths of Mangum's case; like the others. She had the time and willingness to email me before being sworn into office. I think it is most likely that upon learning about the truths of the case that she took advice to avoid contact with me.; September 26, 2019 at 7:09 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Dr. Caligari said...
What's significant about the Court of Appeals' decision is not that Mangum lost, but that she lost for exactly the reason that I predicted as soon as Dr. Harr posted his ghost-written brief. Mangum did not bring a lawsuit for "fraud or mistake"; she brought a lawsuit for malicious prosecution, so the "fraud or mistake" statute had no application. The fact that I could predict that reasoning shows that the court was simply following well-established law, and not looking for some excuse to rule against Mangum.

September 25, 2019 at 11:43 AM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

My response will be included in the upcoming shar-video which I hope to have uploaded by September 18th.; September 26, 2019 at 7:12 AM
Inigo Montoya said...: "I do not believe that there are many individual constituents who have attempted to contact the governor, A.G., or Durham D.A. Even if they had, it would be an infinite amount of the whole of those under jurisdiction"

I do no think this means what you think this means.; September 26, 2019 at 2:45 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Inigo Montoya said...
"I do not believe that there are many individual constituents who have attempted to contact the governor, A.G., or Durham D.A. Even if they had, it would be an infinite amount of the whole of those under jurisdiction"

I do no think this means what you think this means.

September 26, 2019 at 2:45 PM

Hey, Inigo.

To once again quote former Texas Governor Rick Perry, "Oopsie." You are absolutely correct. I meant the opposite of what I said. Thank you for catching that and correcting me. What I actually meant to say was "infinitesimal"... I mistakenly left off the "simal." My bad.

Thanks, again.; September 26, 2019 at 5:34 PM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
You're confusing "incredulous" with "incredible".; September 27, 2019 at 12:23 AM
kenhyderal supporter said...: Blogger Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous Kenny Supporter said...
Hey, Kenny Supporter.

I have never heard of the term "Johnson." Can you give me a definition? Thanks.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Can you give me context and tell me why you are asking me?

September 23, 2019 at 10:20 AM

Hey, Kenny Supporter.

To quote former Texas Governor Rick Perry, "Oopsie!" I made a boo-boo. I should have addressed my question to "kenhyderal supporter" instead of "Kenny Supporter." My bad.
Sorry about that.

The question had to do with a kenhyderal supporter comment which was temporarily withheld awaiting further clarification.

September 24, 2019 at 4:06 AM

Dr. Harr,

A Johnson is also a Richard.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.; September 29, 2019 at 11:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr. Harr --You stated:
"My response will be included in the upcoming shar-video which I hope to have uploaded by September 18th."

Where are you with regard to this "upcoming" video? It is now October 2nd.; October 2, 2019 at 7:28 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Sidney,
You're confusing "incredulous" with "incredible".

September 27, 2019 at 12:23 AM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

So, I see that you joined the Grammar Police force. Hah!

Well, without looking up the statement to which you refer, I am not sure of the context of the use of the word. However, since I know the definition of both words, I believe that my use of it was what I meant to convey. Also, is it not very plausible that something could be considered to be both incredible and incredulous at the same time?; October 3, 2019 at 5:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous kenhyderal supporter said...

Blogger Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous Kenny Supporter said...
Hey, Kenny Supporter.

I have never heard of the term "Johnson." Can you give me a definition? Thanks.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Can you give me context and tell me why you are asking me?

September 23, 2019 at 10:20 AM

Hey, Kenny Supporter.

To quote former Texas Governor Rick Perry, "Oopsie!" I made a boo-boo. I should have addressed my question to "kenhyderal supporter" instead of "Kenny Supporter." My bad.
Sorry about that.

The question had to do with a kenhyderal supporter comment which was temporarily withheld awaiting further clarification.

September 24, 2019 at 4:06 AM

Dr. Harr,

A Johnson is also a Richard.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.

September 29, 2019 at 11:49 AM

Hey, Kenny Supporter.

Yes, further elucidation is required as I do not know the meaning of a "Richard" other than as a name. Neither am I well versed in slang or urban jargon.

Could you please use a definition that could be found in the King's English Dictionary?; October 3, 2019 at 5:50 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dr. Harr --You stated:
"My response will be included in the upcoming shar-video which I hope to have uploaded by September 18th."

Where are you with regard to this "upcoming" video? It is now October 2nd.

October 2, 2019 at 7:28 AM

Hey, Anony.

I believe that the "upcoming video" to which you referred was the video that was uploaded on September 18th.

I have been frantically working on my latest shar-video which will be extremely important. It deals with the NC Court of Appeals actions regarding Mangum's appeal on the malicious prosecution ruling. It is exceeding specific, in-depth, and may even require three parts. It'll clearly be one of the most important ever produced.

Work on the project is running smoothly, and although I haven't yet completed the narrative, much work has been started on laying down images and soundtrack. I would optimistically hope to be posted by October 18th. If work proceeds uninterrupted, I could have it finished before then.; October 3, 2019 at 5:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Sorry, Dr. Harr - You are incorrect.

Here's the full text of your reply (to Dr.Caligari):

Dr. Caligari said...
What's significant about the Court of Appeals' decision is not that Mangum lost, but that she lost for exactly the reason that I predicted as soon as Dr. Harr posted his ghost-written brief. Mangum did not bring a lawsuit for "fraud or mistake"; she brought a lawsuit for malicious prosecution, so the "fraud or mistake" statute had no application. The fact that I could predict that reasoning shows that the court was simply following well-established law, and not looking for some excuse to rule against Mangum.

September 25, 2019 at 11:43 AM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

My response will be included in the upcoming shar-video which I hope to have uploaded by September 18th.

September 26, 2019 at 7:12 AM

As you can PLAINLY see, You were AT THAT TIME, specifically referring to a "shar-video" that deals with the Court of Appeals decision.

As you can also PLAINLY see, this response was WELL AFTER the September 18th video upload.

Given your apparent inability to keep track of your own comments (and commitments, as this WAS a commitment to your few readers), are you sure you should be "providing assistance" to Crystal Mangum?; October 3, 2019 at 8:33 AM
Dr. A said...: Blogger Nifong Supporter said...

Hey, Kenny Supporter.

Yes, further elucidation is required as I do not know the meaning of a "Richard" other than as a name. Neither am I well versed in slang or urban jargon.

Could you please use a definition that could be found in the King's English Dictionary?

October 3, 2019 at 5:50 AM

Sid,

I am suggesting that the half dozen readers of your blog provide you with further elucidation. A Johnson is also a sausage.; October 5, 2019 at 10:41 AM
THE GREAT KILGO said...: Sid:

A Johnson is also a one-eyed trouser snake.; October 5, 2019 at 11:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sorry, Dr. Harr - You are incorrect.

Here's the full text of your reply (to Dr.Caligari):

Dr. Caligari said...
What's significant about the Court of Appeals' decision is not that Mangum lost, but that she lost for exactly the reason that I predicted as soon as Dr. Harr posted his ghost-written brief. Mangum did not bring a lawsuit for "fraud or mistake"; she brought a lawsuit for malicious prosecution, so the "fraud or mistake" statute had no application. The fact that I could predict that reasoning shows that the court was simply following well-established law, and not looking for some excuse to rule against Mangum.

September 25, 2019 at 11:43 AM

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

My response will be included in the upcoming shar-video which I hope to have uploaded by September 18th.

September 26, 2019 at 7:12 AM

As you can PLAINLY see, You were AT THAT TIME, specifically referring to a "shar-video" that deals with the Court of Appeals decision.

As you can also PLAINLY see, this response was WELL AFTER the September 18th video upload.

Given your apparent inability to keep track of your own comments (and commitments, as this WAS a commitment to your few readers), are you sure you should be "providing assistance" to Crystal Mangum?

October 3, 2019 at 8:33 AM

Hey, Anony.

Could you spare a little latitude? I think I may have prefaced that I made the comment without referencing my exact comment. The fact that it was made after September 18th, I think, clearly means that I mistakenly said "September" instead of "October."

Fact is that I am shooting for an uploading date of October 18th. This is an extremely important shar-video and it is also one of the longest, if not longest, I will have produced. It may require three, if not four parts.

I have finished the script and hours ago I completed the narration. I still have yet to lay down all of the soundtrack... and have already started laying down visuals. Putting images to the soundtrack, and adding sound effects, is extremely time-consuming. If I have the energy, I might be able to have it completed by October 18th. It'll be a real eye-opener.; October 9, 2019 at 7:18 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Dr. A said...

Blogger Nifong Supporter said...

Hey, Kenny Supporter.

Yes, further elucidation is required as I do not know the meaning of a "Richard" other than as a name. Neither am I well versed in slang or urban jargon.

Could you please use a definition that could be found in the King's English Dictionary?

October 3, 2019 at 5:50 AM

Sid,

I am suggesting that the half dozen readers of your blog provide you with further elucidation. A Johnson is also a sausage.

October 5, 2019 at 10:41 AM

Hey, Dr. A.

Thanks for the definition. I do not believe further elucidation on the matter is required.; October 9, 2019 at 7:21 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous THE GREAT KILGO said...
Sid:

A Johnson is also a one-eyed trouser snake.

October 5, 2019 at 11:41 AM

Hey, GREAT KILGO.

If I were handing out an award for creativity, you would certainly receive it. Thanks for your contribution. I appreciate all definition submissions, however, as stated in the previous comment response, no further elucidation is required, desired, or requested.; October 9, 2019 at 7:26 AM
kenhyderal supporter said...: Dr. Harr,

Now that you have been elucidated, you should release my comment. My comments always comply with the kenhyderal doctrine. I also am proud to call kenhyderal my friend.; October 13, 2019 at 10:54 AM
kenhyderal supporter said...: Dr. Harr,

Why are you censoring my comment?; October 16, 2019 at 4:45 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous kenhyderal supporter said...
Dr. Harr,

Why are you censoring my comment?

October 16, 2019 at 4:45 PM

Hey, kenhyderal supporter.

I do not censor comments... I screen them. Big difference.

Your comment, using the word "Johnson" to imply a genital organ in reference to another individual commentor to this site, was in poor taste... something that belongs at a Trump rally. What I recommend is that you re-submit your comment sans the "Johnson" phrase, and I will post it.

Have been busy working on my next shar-video. It's obvious to me that I will not have it completed by October 18th. In fact, it will take considerably longer. It'll be the largest shar-video I've ever produced, and possibly one of the most important. Yesterday I completed Part One -- and it's 18 minutes long. I believe there could very well be four parts by completion.; October 17, 2019 at 4:26 AM
guiowen said...: So, Sidney, do you expect to have it ready by December 18? Or would January 18 be a better time?; October 17, 2019 at 9:59 AM
kenhyderal supporter said...: Nifong Supporter said...

kenhyeral has given moral and financial support to Crystal, and has made comments in advocacy of her cause. Getting Crystal out of confinement and getting her exonerated is a mammoth challenge that requires efforts of many individuals. I certainly cannot do it alone, and must rely on assistance from others... including major contributions by kenhyderal, for which I am grateful.

August 28, 2019 at 7:38 AM

Dr. Harr,

It is evident that, although kenhyderal may be a little man, he has a big heart. Therefore, I am proud to call kenhyderal my friend.; October 17, 2019 at 2:27 PM
Anonymous said...: You could've done anything if you'd wanted
And all your friends and family think that you're lucky
But the side of you they'll never see
Is when you're left alone with the memories
That hold your life together like glue

You pull back the curtains
And the sun burns into your eyes
You watch a plane flying across a clear blue sky

This is the day
Your life will surely change
This is the day
When things fall into place
This is the day
Your life will surely change

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXaEAoRUkfE; October 18, 2019 at 2:33 PM
Nifong Supporter Supporter said...: Sidney,

Don't look now,but one of the comments uses a word to imply a genital organ in reference to another individual commentor to this site. The comment is in poor taste... something that belongs at a Trump rally.; October 20, 2019 at 5:12 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY.

LISTEN UP... IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTS.

After further review, Anony's comment of October 17, 2019 at 7:11 AM was determined to be out of bounds with regards to civility, so it was ejected.

There is latitude given to some comments not directed at the topic at hand... poetry and even song lyrics, for example. However, crude statements have no place in this family-friendly educational and informative format.

Also, I would expect some major movement forward in Crystal Mangum's case in the very near future. Stay alert!

As you were.; October 21, 2019 at 5:51 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous guiowen said...
So, Sidney, do you expect to have it ready by December 18? Or would January 18 be a better time?

October 17, 2019 at 9:59 AM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

There is nothing magical about the 18th. I'll post the shar-video as soon as it is completed. I have completed Part One and am working on Part Two now. I anticipate it will take four parts to complete. Part One is 18 minutes in length... and I will try to limit each part to less than twenty minutes.

If I had to guestimate, I'd say that, with luck, the entirety of this multi-part shar-video might be completed and posted by the end of the month.; October 21, 2019 at 5:57 AM
guiowen said...: Which month?; October 21, 2019 at 7:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

You have 69 days to free Mangum.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; October 23, 2019 at 5:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Sidney Harr promised: "After posting the html version of my Petition for Discretionary Review in my lawsuit against WRAL-5, I will post a shar-video about reasons why I believed Ms. Mangum would be released by the end of July 2019."

August 1, 2019 at 4:34 PM

We are still waiting 83 days later.; October 23, 2019 at 11:13 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
Which month?

October 21, 2019 at 7:35 AM

Hey, gui, mon ami.

It was my hope to have the video completed by the end of October 2019, but as things appear now, it will be some time within the early part of November 2019. As I stated, this is my longest shar-video... probably consisting of four parts. Part One, which is completed, is a little over 18 minutes long. Currently I am almost midway through Part Two.

This shar-video will probably be one of the most important that I've ever produced.; October 26, 2019 at 4:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...

Sid,

You have 69 days to free Mangum.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

October 23, 2019 at 5:08 AM

Hey, Abe.

I have no doubt that I will easily have Mangum freed well within the deadline... It'll be made in the shade, as we used to say back in the day. Of this, I can give you a Namath guarantee!!; October 26, 2019 at 4:43 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney Harr promised: "After posting the html version of my Petition for Discretionary Review in my lawsuit against WRAL-5, I will post a shar-video about reasons why I believed Ms. Mangum would be released by the end of July 2019."

August 1, 2019 at 4:34 PM

We are still waiting 83 days later.

October 23, 2019 at 11:13 AM

Hey, Anony.

A lot has transpired since that comment. Instead of producing a shar-video about why I believed Mangum would be released by the end of July 2019, I found it more important and relevant to produce a shar-video about the problems with the NC Court of Appeals ruling.

It will shortly become evident why I was/am confident about Crystal Mangum's release and exoneration. I'm talking a matter of days or weeks. Believe me when I say that the light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming locomotive, but rather the light at the end of the tunnel.

ALERT to all Mangum-detractors: Now is the time to locate and have your crying towels available. If you are not in possession of a crying towel, get one immediately. The tide is about to turn... and I'm talking tsunami!; October 26, 2019 at 4:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

When Mangum is not released this year, will you tell us the reason(s) you thought she would be?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; October 26, 2019 at 9:43 AM
guiowen said...: What? Again?
Here we go again:

Sidney: "I have some powerful arguments that will get CGM free within two weeks if not sooner."
Sidney: "Please, everybody, tell me the color of your favorite crying towel."
Kenny: "The evil Duke lacrosse apologists have been successful up to now, but will now suffer as the arc of justice bends in Crystal's direction."
Some time later:
Others: "So tell us Sidney how things went?"
Sidney: "I clearly failed to take into consideration the evil behavior of the justice system, and/or the way CGM's attorneys betrayed her!"
Kenny: "What can you expect from the U.S. system? This would never happen in Canada, or any other reasonable country! Reform reform! Drain this swamp!"; October 26, 2019 at 5:45 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Sid,

When Mangum is not released this year, will you tell us the reason(s) you thought she would be?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

October 26, 2019 at 9:43 AM

Hey, Abe... ye of little faith.

First, it's presumptuous to infer that Crystal Mangum will not be released this year. Hah!

Within a matter of days (weeks at the absolute latest) you will understand why she is likely to be released very much sooner rather later. At that time you will also come to realize my strategy.

Once I have the opportunity, I will give an in-depth accounting of why this past summer I was sure that Crystal would be released based upon my efforts. My activities were complicated but coordinated and should have produced an appropriate result... but it didn't. Right now I am working on the shar-video about the NC Court of Appeals.

I would imagine that Crystal will be released well before I have the time to explain my past efforts.; October 27, 2019 at 4:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: guiowen said...
What? Again?
Here we go again:

Sidney: "I have some powerful arguments that will get CGM free within two weeks if not sooner."
Sidney: "Please, everybody, tell me the color of your favorite crying towel."
Kenny: "The evil Duke lacrosse apologists have been successful up to now, but will now suffer as the arc of justice bends in Crystal's direction."
Some time later:
Others: "So tell us Sidney how things went?"
Sidney: "I clearly failed to take into consideration the evil behavior of the justice system, and/or the way CGM's attorneys betrayed her!"
Kenny: "What can you expect from the U.S. system? This would never happen in Canada, or any other reasonable country! Reform reform! Drain this swamp!"

October 26, 2019 at 5:45 PM

Hey, gui, mon ami... ye of little faith, too.

Do I detect a smidgen of sarcasm in your comment? Hah. Keep in mind that this time my prediction is Namath-guaranteed!! Never before have I utilized a "Namath-guarantee." That should give you a clue as to the likelihood of my belief that Mangum will be released soon... unlike prior instances mentioned.

At present I await the last piece of the puzzle, which I expect any day, before I engage my D-Day legal offensive. Believe me that the light at the end of the tunnel is the end of the tunnel and not an oncoming locomotive.; October 27, 2019 at 4:46 AM
kenhyderal supporter said...: It looks like sarcastic Abe, is about to do his countdown thing again. Unfortunately, he is not doing it to be informative. He has cynically and disparagingly concluded that Dr. Harr can't make his hoped for timetable and he uses this artifice, with actual ill-will, to mock him and scoff at his efforts in a way that gives him cover if Dr. Harr is successful.; October 27, 2019 at 6:08 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

I will be interested in finding out why you believed Mangum would be released this year, why your "D-Day legal offensive" failed and what comes after a "Namath guarantee."

Don't let us down this time.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

PS - You have 65 days to release Mangum.; October 27, 2019 at 6:15 AM
Nifong Supporter Supporter said...: Dr. Harr,

Almost a year ago, you told us you were working on secret projects. When do you plan to reveal the details?; October 27, 2019 at 6:15 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous kenhyderal supporter said...
It looks like sarcastic Abe, is about to do his countdown thing again. Unfortunately, he is not doing it to be informative. He has cynically and disparagingly concluded that Dr. Harr can't make his hoped for timetable and he uses this artifice, with actual ill-will, to mock him and scoff at his efforts in a way that gives him cover if Dr. Harr is successful.

October 27, 2019 at 6:08 AM

Hey, kenhyderal supporter.

It is only a precipitously short amount of time before revelations of my stratagem and realization of the inevitable successful outcome of justice for Crystal Mangum. Were Abe to restart his countdown today, it would be given up long before the deadline.

Am still in a waiting mode, but as soon as timeliness of action is fully in my control, which I anticipate to be any day now, I will let it be known in this comment section with a definitive date of its public release.; October 28, 2019 at 4:54 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid,

I will be interested in finding out why you believed Mangum would be released this year, why your "D-Day legal offensive" failed and what comes after a "Namath guarantee."

Don't let us down this time.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

PS - You have 65 days to release Mangum.

October 27, 2019 at 6:15 AM

Hey, Abe.

Crystal should be exonerated and released long before 65... or 64 days have elapsed. This is Namath-guaranteed. You may or may not be disappointed (or let down) dependent upon your preference regarding justice for Crystal Mangum. Although I consider you to be a Mangum detractor, I, deep inside, believe that you are also a justice supporter. Furthermore, I believe that you will be undeniably convinced of Mangum's innocence once my reveal is made public.

As of now, I am not in control of the timeline of its release, but that should change in a matter of days... hopefully by week's end. As stated above, once I have requisite documents/documentation to proceed with the revelation, I will announce it in this comment section.; October 28, 2019 at 5:04 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Nifong Supporter Supporter said...
Dr. Harr,

Almost a year ago, you told us you were working on secret projects. When do you plan to reveal the details?

October 27, 2019 at 6:15 AM

Hey, Nifong Double-Supporter.

Almost a year ago, I was working on a couple of secret projects/plans which never panned out, and were subsequently jettisoned. Working on freeing Mangum is time-consuming and has prevented me from giving details about those projects. (Note: One secret project has not yet been undertaken... and may not be in the near future because my current plan promises to be very successful.)

Once Mangum is freed and her exoneration under serious consideration, I will take the time to expound upon the secret plans and projects that I have concocted throughout the years of my endeavors.; October 28, 2019 at 5:10 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT FOR WHICH YOU'VE BEEN WAITING!!

To let you know that I have in my possession all that is required for me to move forward with the liberation and exoneration of Crystal Gail Mangum. For the next 48 hours I will be busy with this worthy endeavor... the end results of which you will know before the month's end. Undoubtedly no later than Friday.

Last call for ordering crying towels.; October 29, 2019 at 2:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

You have 62 days to free Mangum.

Now that you have what you needed to move forward I don't want to hear any excuses.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; October 30, 2019 at 4:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Sid,

You have 61 days to free Mangum.

No excuses!

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; October 31, 2019 at 3:52 AM
guiowen said...: Sidney,
We're waiting with bated breath.; October 31, 2019 at 8:28 AM

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

Roy Cooper's refusal to be confronted by truths of Mangum's case: Parts One and Two

71 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me