justice4nifong: Crystal Mangum and Sidney Harr's Motion for Reconsideration

Saturday, February 28, 2026

Crystal Mangum and Sidney Harr's Motion for Reconsideration

NOTICE: This Substack "World v. Crystal Mangum" will be on hiatus for several weeks. Removal of this notice will indicate the posting of new Substack material. In the meantime, there are twenty posts currently accessible. Thank you.

73 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...: dhall
Inmates are released from NCCIW in Raleigh to community-based support programs, halfway houses, or directly into their home communities.
My understanding is that she is still under probation, so that may be why she was transported to Durham.
February 27, 2026 at 2:39 PM; February 28, 2026 at 5:33 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous
According to several news outlets, she was taken to Durham because she’ll be living with a friend there.
February 27, 2026 at 2:46 PM; February 28, 2026 at 5:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Prince Humperdinck
According to NBC news:
“[Mangum] left the North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women in Raleigh at about 9:49 a.m. ET.

She was led into a white North Carolina Department of Adult Correction car and a parole officer then drove her to Durham, where Mangum will be living with a friend, agency spokesperson Brad Deen said.

She’ll be living under terms of her parole for nine months, Deen added.”

Who knows? Maybe Kenny moved to Durham….
February 27, 2026 at 3:08 PM; February 28, 2026 at 5:35 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

That may be so, but about a week earlier I was contacted by the prison and asked if I would be picking her up when she was released. I said yes. I was asked when I would like to pick her up, and was provided with several options. I chose the earliest time at 8:00 a.m. About three days later I received a call stating I would not be able to pick her up and that she would be transported to her release destination by the State.

Then I asked about bringing an outfit and shoes for her to wear on her release. After going through numerous hoops, I was told to drop off the clothes the morning of her release. Twenty-four hours later I was told I would not be able to provide her clothing... that the prison would provide civilian clothing for her.

Naturally, I believe, as in many other incidents, Ms. Mangum has been treated differently than other inmates... decisions made out of cruelty.; February 28, 2026 at 5:42 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Yeah, she arrived at her Durham destination in the early-mid afternoon on the 27th.; February 28, 2026 at 5:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Prince Humperdinck.

Have you actually heard of a situation in which a prisoner is released with transportation arranged being denied the ability to pick up the inmate? The State transported her from the Raleigh prison to a destination in Durham. Do you actually believe that is due to the fact that she is under parole? I don't. I think the State takes glee in its administration of cruelty against Ms. Mangum.; February 28, 2026 at 5:48 AM
Anonymous said...: A motion for reconsideration?
(a) Motions for reconsideration may be made only for final decisions on appeal and will only be granted if a party can establish that:

(1) New and material evidence is now available that, despite the party's due diligence, was not available when the record closed;
(Fails that requirement- no new evidence is now available)
(2) The final decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of law or there has been an intervening change in the controlling law; or
(Fails that requirement - no erroneous interpretation of the law and no changes to existing law)
(3) A manifest injustice, clearly apparent or obvious on its face, will occur if the motion for reconsideration is not granted.
(Fails that requirement, as CGM is no longer in jail)
What next? You going to file a lolsuit against the North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections for taking CGM to her friend in Durham?; February 28, 2026 at 6:56 AM
dhall said...: According to the news article Prince Humperdinck quoted, she was taken to Durham because that’s where she will be living.
I interpret that to mean that she was released from NCCIW in Raleigh directly into her home community. That’s not a cruelty, regardless of your attempt to spin it as such.
Crystal Mangum is free from prison. She has access to your blog. I welcome her response to this, and I’ll take her word if she says this was something she didn’t want to happen.; February 28, 2026 at 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...: I thought you did not have a car. How were you going to pick her up? And I'm unclear how the State giving her a ride to her destination is cruel.

Have you even heard from her yet?; February 28, 2026 at 10:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Prince Humperdinck.

"Butthurt" is not acceptable word. Please re-submit your comment with a suitable substitute.; February 28, 2026 at 5:12 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

I'm not an attorney, but it is my understanding that a Motion for Reconsideration can be made with regard to a final order and judgment in any legal complaint.

Problematic with Ms. Mangum's case is that she received ineffective counsel. Much evidence (though available at trial) was not presented at trial... including an April 14, 2011 e-mail in which Duke Hospital staff acknowledged a "problem with a tube and not a stab wound" was responsible for Daye's death.

Also, even though Ms. Mangum has been released, she is still under State custody on parole. Further, she needs to have her conviction overturned.

As far as filing lawsuits, I do not file ones that are frivolous, vexatious, or malicious.; February 28, 2026 at 5:26 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

I do have a car... have had one for many years. I was planning on picking her up in my car. The cruelty regarding Mangum's release has to do with the State treating her differently than others. Fact is the prison called and asked me if I was going to pick her up, and what time to schedule. I agreed to pick her up at 8:00 a.m. on Friday. Everything had been arranged, then out of the clear blue, I received a call telling me that they were going to transport her directly to Durham. I've never heard of the prison transferring someone to a release destination, and the excuse given to me didn't make sense.; February 28, 2026 at 5:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Posterior pained?
What excuse did they give you? Sounds like she was released where she’ll be staying. Why is that a bad thing?; February 28, 2026 at 5:50 PM
Anonymous said...: What excuse did they give? And, you still haven't answered if you heard from her yet. Perhaps she asked that they transport her instead of you picking her up.; March 1, 2026 at 7:59 AM
Prince Humperdinck said...: Hmm. I can’t remember what my comment was, but what the hey, right?

Sid is backside bruised because CGM chose to have the NCCIW take her to Durham rather than have him pick her up. Note that the “prison” called him….He doesn’t say anything about CGM. I doubt she was even aware of his plans.

And now she’s in Durham with a friend rather than Sid. Speaks volumes about her feelings regarding her “fiancé”.; March 1, 2026 at 10:15 AM
dhall said...: I am interested in hearing this excuse you were given by the NCCIW. Could you elaborate?; March 1, 2026 at 2:06 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree with dhall -- if CGM says that she didn't want to be taken to Durham by the North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections, she can come on here and tell us. I expect her to be able to prove it's really her commenting, though. As kenhyderal has proven, anyone can create a fake Blogger profile and comment here.; March 2, 2026 at 7:31 AM
Prince Humperdinck said...: I vaguely recall the email you’re referring to- the one that had something hand-written on it. IIRC, it doesn’t show who it’s from. An appeal to an unknown source is not persuasive, and wouldn’t even be considered as evidence, unless the person that sent it testified. Do you know who sent it? Did CGM know who sent it at the time of the trial?; March 2, 2026 at 3:19 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: "Posterior pained" is a barely acceptable substitute.

Regarding Ms. Mangum, she's currently staying in a hotel....temporarily until an appropriate more permanent residence can be established.; March 4, 2026 at 4:58 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Prince Humperdinck
I vaguely recall the email you’re referring to- the one that had something hand-written on it. IIRC, it doesn’t show who it’s from. An appeal to an unknown source is not persuasive, and wouldn’t even be considered as evidence, unless the person that sent it testified. Do you know who sent it? Did CGM know who sent it at the time of the trial?
March 2, 2026 at 3:19 PM

Hey, Prince Humperdinck.

I do not know who sent the April 14, 2011 e-mail, but I know it was sent to Ms. Mangum's first attorney Woody Vann. I am sure he is aware of the sender's identity. I believe a truly committed defense attorney would have brought the e-mail to the attention of jury... especially since the cause of Mr. Daye's death is in dispute. Surely it is exculpatory and favorable to Ms. Mangum.; March 4, 2026 at 5:09 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Prince Humperdinck
Hmm. I can’t remember what my comment was, but what the hey, right?

Sid is backside bruised because CGM chose to have the NCCIW take her to Durham rather than have him pick her up. Note that the “prison” called him….He doesn’t say anything about CGM. I doubt she was even aware of his plans.

And now she’s in Durham with a friend rather than Sid. Speaks volumes about her feelings regarding her “fiancé”.
March 1, 2026 at 10:15 AM

Hey, Prince Humperdinck.

Yes, the prison did call me to ask if I would be picking Ms. Mangum up from prison on Friday, the 27th. During that call, I arranged to pick her up at the earliest slot available... 8:00 a.m. Then, several days later out of the clear blue, I received a call telling me that Ms. Mangum would be transferred to her release destination by the State.

Also, at the time of the initial phone discussion, neither Ms. Mangum nor I were aware of the constraints of the parole... which would include an ankle monitor and 7:00 p.m. curfew. Ms. Mangum was never told about conditions of parole until the time of her release, as I understand.; March 4, 2026 at 5:17 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

Could you elaborate regarding the "excuse" given by NCCIW? There was no reason provided to me with regards to why the arrangement I had made to pick up Ms. Mangum on release were changed wherein the State would transport her to her release destination.; March 4, 2026 at 5:23 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Prince Humperdinck.

Let me provide an update. Ms. Mangum is currently in a hotel awaiting placement in a more permanent residence.; March 4, 2026 at 5:28 AM
dhall said...: Dr. Harr -- You stated on Feb 28th that you "received a call telling me that they were going to transport her directly to Durham. I've never heard of the prison transferring someone to a release destination, and the excuse given to me didn't make sense."

Was the call from someone other than NCCIW? Regardless, I would like to know what this excuse was.; March 4, 2026 at 6:06 AM
Prince Humperdinck said...: Parole constraints are determined by NCGS 15A-1374, and include "Remain in one or more specified places for a specified period or periods each
day and wear a device that permits the defendant's compliance with the
condition to be monitored electronically".
Her parole conditions would have been a notification from the Parole Commission.or (I think) her Parole Case Analyst/Parole Officer. I can't find anything in the Parole Commission SOP that dictates when this communication should occur.
Feel free to google it and see if you can find something.; March 4, 2026 at 6:37 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Prince Humperdinck.

Thank you for the link. Will check it out soon.; March 6, 2026 at 4:43 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: dhall
Dr. Harr -- You stated on Feb 28th that you "received a call telling me that they were going to transport her directly to Durham. I've never heard of the prison transferring someone to a release destination, and the excuse given to me didn't make sense."

Was the call from someone other than NCCIW? Regardless, I would like to know what this excuse was.
March 4, 2026 at 6:06 AM

Hey, dhall.

The call to schedule pick-up of Ms. Mangum on her release was made by prison correctional officers, as was the call informing me that Mangum would be transferred directly to her release destination and no one would be able to pick her up from the prison itself. I was referred to the staff at the parole office. The initial person I spoke with in the parole system referred me to her supervisor, however the reason provided for the parole transferring her was something which I did not fully understand. In short, I was told it was policy, and that I would not have access to it.; March 6, 2026 at 4:50 AM
Anonymous said...: IIRC, the office of the Secretary of Public Safety determines who can pick up an inmate after release -- not the prison.; March 6, 2026 at 7:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!

Just an update. Ms. Mangum is settling in fine. No word yet on lawsuit against NC Innocence Inquiry Commission.

LINK to photo of Ms. Mangum and me taken on February 28th, the day following her release from prison.

As you were.; March 7, 2026 at 6:15 AM
dhall said...: Dr. Harr, you not understanding the reason you were given is not the same as that reason not making sense.

“I didn’t fully understand" indicates your inability to comprehend the information you were given.

“The excuse given to me didn't make sense." implies a lack of logic, consistency, or coherence in the information you were given.; March 7, 2026 at 6:26 AM
dhall said...: A very good article regarding Crystal Mangum's parole can be found here.

One thing that sticks with me from this article is the description of reentry as a fragile, scrutinized and uncertain opportunity.

Crystal Mangum has to do a number of things. She needs to find housing, employment, transportation, medical care. She will need community support to do this.

My concern is that Dr. Harr will, in his overzealousness, put these things on the backburner and have her focus on some attempt at vindication.

That's the least of things she needs.
Let her secure the things she actually needs before attempting to get the things she (or more likely you, Dr. Harr) wants.; March 12, 2026 at 5:56 AM
Anonymous said...: I'll just comment here that evidence not presented at trial IS NOT THE SAME as "New and material evidence...now available that was not available when the record closed"
I'll also note that if CGM is claiming ineffective counsel, the appropriate response for that is a Motion for Appropriate Relief, not a civil lolsuit.; March 12, 2026 at 1:42 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

I appreciate your concern for Ms. Mangum and the link to the article by Durham Voice

As far as her post-release needs are concerned, they have been met. The post-release programs available for her and others released from prison are surprisingly pretty impressive. Although I helped contribute emergency housing with two hotel nights, she is settled into post-release housing (which I assisted in helping her receive). Programs include help with finding employment, obtaining a State photo ID, providing a cellphone, and transportation... which in Durham includes free public bus transit. Also, she has assistance with addressing healthcare issues. This assistance was available and utilized within a week of her release.

Whenever she is ready, I will assist her in helping to overturn her wrongful second-degree murder conviction. Keep in mind that the State cannot provide a narrative about how the nonfatal stab wound to Daye's left flank caused his death... much less his brain-death.

The media is suppose to be a bulwark to protect citizens from injustice meted out by the system. It has failed miserably, with the exception of the Durham Voice article of April 29, 2025. Although Mr. Kenney's article was well-meaning, it could have mentioned Mangum's pending lawsuit against the NC Innocence Commission, and other injustices by the State, courts, and media.; March 13, 2026 at 9:18 AM
dhall said...: I find it difficult to believe that Crystal Mangum has had her post-release needs already met. For some (especially those incarcerated for a long period of time), getting these needs met can take years.
Does Crystal Mangum have a job?
As far as the State not “providing a narrative” about Daye’s stabbing leading to his death, that’s a false statement. That you don’t accept their narrative (as we’ve discussed, I don’t either) is not the same as them not providing one.; March 14, 2026 at 6:39 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

The post-release programs are surprisingly well designed. She has been provided with a cellphone, she's received vital records (birth certificate.. and State ID is pending). She doesn't have a job, as of yet, although employment agencies have been contacted. Because of her false murder conviction and the biased media coverage, it is not unlikely that finding employment for her might be far more difficult than others.

What post-release long-term needs do you believe will confront her and take years to resolve?; March 15, 2026 at 11:13 AM
dhall said...: While looking for the easiest way to explain what I feel are Mangum's long-term needs that will take the longest to resolve, I came across this. It does a much better job explaining them than I can.

How long do you think it will take before Crystal Mangum feels comfortably reintegrated into society?
Better yet, how long does Crystal Mangum think it will take?; March 15, 2026 at 2:33 PM
Anonymous said...: A response in opposition to Sid's motion to reconsider was filed yesterday.; March 18, 2026 at 11:21 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Thank you for the update. I will look forward to receiving it in the mail... and will likely post it on this blog site.; March 19, 2026 at 11:17 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

Per an Anony-post of March 18, 2026 at 11:21 AM, NC DOJ filed a response in opposition to my motion to reconsider on March 17, 2026. As of yesterday, Saturday, March 21, 2026, I have not received a copy of it in my post office box. Will check again, later today... Sunday, March 22, 2026.

As you were.; March 22, 2026 at 5:22 AM
dhall said...: Anonymous did not state who filed a response in opposition to your motion to reconsider. It was filed by the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission.
The NC IIC is not part of the NC Department of Justice. It is a separate, independent state agency.
Words mean things. If you can’t state truthfully who did something (like file a motion) you either don’t know, or you’re lying.
Since you actually filed the lawsuit, I’m assuming you know who responded to your motion.
That leaves us the question, why would you lie about it?; March 22, 2026 at 6:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

As of yesterday afternoon, March 23rd, I had not received a Response in my post office box. I will visit my post office in a few hours to see if it has arrived. To my knowledge, North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission is being represented by the North Carolina Department of Justice... specifically, Assosicate Attorney General Faiza Ali.

Regardless, the point is that the document which was filed on March 17th should have reached me by mail before now.; March 24, 2026 at 5:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Dr, Harr -- the NC DOJ provides legal representation for ALL state departments, agencies, and commissions. The motions filed by a state commission during a trial ARE filed by the commission, not the DOJ.

If you or Mangum hired a lawyer, and that lawyer filed a motion for the purpose of the legal case, would the motion be considered filed by you or Crystal Mangum, or would it be considered filed by Lawyer X?

"Regardless, the point is that the document which was filed on March 17th should have reached me by mail before now."
The Eastern District Court has the steps laid out if you are not receiving mail from them:

If you are not receiving legal mail from the North Carolina Eastern District Court, it may be due to several reasons. Here are some steps you can take to resolve the issue:
Check your address: Ensure that the mailing address on your legal documents is correct and that you are not using an outdated or incorrect address. (Note: Crystal Mangum now has an outdated address).
Contact the court: Reach out to the court's office to inquire about the status of your legal mail and to request any assistance you may need.
Verify your email and phone number: Make sure that the court has your current email and phone number listed on their records, as this information is used for communication.
Check for scams: Be cautious of scams that may involve fake court communications. Always verify the authenticity of any communication from the court.
Use online resources: Utilize the court's official website or other online resources to stay informed about court-related matters and to access legal information.

If you continue to experience issues, consider contacting the court's legal assistance or visiting the court's office in person for further assistance.

I'm willing to bet you've never made it to the second step of contacting the court.; March 24, 2026 at 6:13 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!

As most of this blog viewers and commenters know, Crystal Mangum served fourteen years of incarceration on a conviction for a non-existent crime. Most blog-viewers/commenters know that the instrument of Reginald Daye's death was an endotracheal tube and not a steak knife.

Had Ms. Mangum had representation by a Bar-accredited attorney working in her best interests, she would have neither been prosecuted nor convicted. As early as 2014, I tried to retain the NC Innocence Inquiry Commission for Ms. Mangum, but it refused... notably this occurring after the Duke Lacrosse Case players reached a settlement with the City of Durham in which they did not receive financial compensation (they initially sought $10 million/each) but the city agreed to pay the NC IIC $50,000.

Four consecutive executive directors refused to inquire into Ms. Mangum's claims of actual/factual/absolute innocence which was in violation of general statutes.

On October 9, 2025, I filed with Ms. Mangum a lawsuit basically asking the Federal Court to order NC IIC to comply with the law and inquire into Ms. Mangum's claims of innocence. Ms. Mangum has been without Bar-accredited legal counsel since her January 17, 2017 abandonment by the NC Prisoner Legal Services.

The Durham Public Defender's Office and the NC Indigent Defense Services stated they could not provide legal counsel without a court order. A motion was made by Ms. Mangum requesting the Duke University Law School-linked Judge James Dever, III, issue an order to enable her to be assigned an attorney by the Public Defender's Office or Indigent Defense Services... not surprisingly, he ignored the motion and thereby denied it.

This morning of March 25, 2026, I visited the post office and my box did not contain a copy of the March 17, 2026 Response in Opposition to the Motion to Reconsider. Therefore, I walked to Federal Courthouse and picked up a copy of the Response and noticed that an order from Dever had been issued earlier in the day in which he denied the motion to reconsider.

So, the case has been officially closed... the NC IIC refusing to follow the law in the appearance of a quid pro quo, and the North Carolina Department of Justice defending its violation of the state statutes.

Additionally, from reviewing the Docket, I am not sure the NC DOJ even bothered to send a copy of its Response to the pro se plaintiffs... which might be why I have not received a copy in the mail.

The refusal of the NC IIC to even inquire into Ms. Mangum's claims of innocence, I believe, is evidence of its knowledge of Mangum's innocence in Reginald Daye's death. Otherwise, the NC IIC would not fight tooth and nail to keep from inquiring into Mangum's claims.

As you were.; March 25, 2026 at 4:56 PM
Anonymous said...: "... an order from [Judge] Dever had been issued earlier in the day in which he denied the motion to reconsider."
Both the motion for reconsideration and the motion for a more definite statement were denied.
Not only denied, but denied as meritless -- which means (like all of Sid's legal attempts) they were missing key legal requirements.

Sid's been told many times that "a man who represents himself has a fool for a client". Unfortunately for Sid, he's never bothered to explore the underlying meaning of that quote.; March 26, 2026 at 9:07 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony. Keep in mind that Judge James Dever III is hardly an impartial adjudicator... need I remind you of his ties to Duke University?

As far as pro se filings, Ms. Mangum has been blacklisted by attorneys and the NC Innocence Inquiry Commission has violated the law by refusing to inquire into her claims of actual innocence.

With regards to private sector attorneys, I sought a one-hour free consultation from Raleigh Attorney Damon Chetson... it cost me five hundred dollars. He also told me that it would take between $75,000 to $100,000 in lawyer fees, paid up front, to get Mangum's conviction overturned. So, in Mangum's case (and mine), the quote is not relevant.

Let me know if you require further elucidation.; March 26, 2026 at 6:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid -- You live a mile from the Federal Court building. You could've walked there the day after you find out about the filing and picked up the paperwork.; March 27, 2026 at 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...: “Hey, Anony. Keep in mind that Judge James Dever III is hardly an impartial adjudicator...” That’s a meaningless claim you’ve made about every judge who’s ruled against you.

“Ms. Mangum has been blacklisted by attorneys….” Because she’s let total idiots make her legal decisions. I’m betting CGM could easily find a lawyer if “someone” wasn’t involved.
“….. NC Innocence Inquiry Commission has violated the law by refusing to inquire into her claims of actual innocence.” Funny, the NC IIC just won a lawsuit where this same claim was made against them. Perhaps you’ve heard about it.; March 28, 2026 at 4:50 AM
dhall said...: 2 points you apparently aren’t aware of:
1) The NC IIC does not have to investigate every claim of innocence.
2) There is a specific process that must be followed.

From what you’ve posted, Crystal Mangum never even completed the first step in this process. Did she submit a formal claim questionnaire?
This questionnaire serves as the application to start the review process. Claimants can’t have a “legal lay person” or “advocate” submit this formal claim for them. It has to be submitted by the claimant, their lawyer, or a state/local agency.; March 28, 2026 at 12:01 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

As I have said before, I do not feel welcomed at the Federal Court building, although I do have good rapport with the security and deputy clerks. The Clerk of Court and I are definitely at loggerheads and I try to restrict my presence at the building.

As it now appears, the Defendant's counsel (NC DOJ) did not timely send a copy of the brief to me.

All turned out well because had I received a Response in Opposition, I would have drafted a Reply... ergo I was saved the time and effort of replying in a case in which the unjust outcome was preordained by the Duke-linked judge.; March 29, 2026 at 5:06 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

I believe that you are a bit naive in your belief that just because NC IIC prevailed, justice was served. Judges often violate the law, delay case action, and issue rulings which are blatantly unjust on their face. Specifically, Judges Michael O'Foghludha, Clayton D. Somers, Matthew Houston, Paul Ridgeway, and then-Appellate Judge Phil Berger, Jr.

Keep in mind that the lawsuit's purpose was to procure legal counsel for Ms. Mangum, who had been blacklisted by attorneys in the private sector.

Consider yourself enlightened.; March 29, 2026 at 5:17 AM
Anonymous said...: “ Keep in mind that the lawsuit's purpose was to procure legal counsel for Ms. Mangum, who had been blacklisted by attorneys in the private sector”.

Funny…Nowhere in the original complaint do you ask for this relief.; March 29, 2026 at 5:28 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

Regarding point 1): I agree that the NC IIC does not have to represent all applicants. The difference between "inquire (into)" and "investigate" is nothing but semantics. The law clearly states that NC IIC has a duty to inquire into claims of actual innocence. NC IIC is in violation of the law because Ms. Mangum did claim actual... and even absolute innocence.

Regarding point 2): Ms. Mangum drafted a handwritten letter to the NC IIC requesting to be represented. There may be some formal application online, but as an inmate, she had no access to the internet. The onus was upon NC IIC to assure Ms. Mangum had access to the application... for example, a hardcopy of the application/questionnaire could have been sent to her in prison. This did not happen. The fact that NC IIC is fighting tooth and nail to keep from representing Ms. Mangum clearly demonstrates its bias against her.

Clearly, there is a quid pro quo that you do not want to acknowledge wherein NC IIC received $50,000 from the three Duke Lacrosse players in a settlement with the city of Durham (in which they sought $10 million/each).; March 29, 2026 at 5:41 AM
dhall said...: Dr. Harr - Mangum could have requested a copy of the questionnaire from the prison, or instead of writing what is obviously your words in her 2 page handwritten letter, she could have simply asked them to send her a copy of the questionnaire. The onus is on the claimant to start the claim process, not the NC IIC.

You’re trying to make Crystal Mangum look like a victim of the evil NC IIC, when she’s really the victim of your own ineptitude.

You’re even creating ridiculous conspiracy theories to excuse your lack of research.

As Walt pointed out numerous times, with friends like you, Crystal Mangum doesn’t need enemies.; March 29, 2026 at 6:37 AM
dhall said...: A final point. The NC IIC did not receive any money from the “three Duke Lacrosse players”.
Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans did not receive personal funds, either.; March 29, 2026 at 7:53 AM
Anonymous said...: “ Ms. Mangum drafted a handwritten letter to the NC IIC requesting to be represented.”

Nowhere in her handwritten letter does CGM ask the NC IIC to represent her.
She says there’s “new evidence” (there’s not - a new opinion is not new evidence), and asks for Dr. Wecht’s opinion to be reviewed .
At no point does CGM ask the IIC to represent her, or does she ask for the innocence claim be started.
You don’t in your letter either. Instead, you ask for the NC IIC to contact you. You are not the claimant, their lawyer, or a state/local agency.; March 29, 2026 at 9:15 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

True, NC IIC did not receive money from the three Duke Lacrosse players. They received $50,000 from the city of Durham as part of its settlement with the three Duke Lacrosse players... a bargain instead of having to pay them each $10 million following a seven-year legal battle.; March 31, 2026 at 5:52 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Don't you think the NC IIC should have an inkling of why Crystal wrote the letter... especially with my cover letter? NC IIC was aware Ms. Mangum was incarcerated in a post-conviction phase. NC IIC was aware Ms. Mangum claimed actual innocence regarding her conviction. Surely NC IIC could have responded to Ms. Mangum's letter with a hardcopy application with instructions on how to initiate an inquiry into her claim. Keep in mind, NC IIC deals mostly with incarcerated individuals with claims of innocence.; March 31, 2026 at 5:59 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

What Ms. Mangum needs is attorneys with integrity, judges who are impartial, and a media which is unbiased.

As far as asking the prison for a copy of the NC IIC questionnaire application, I do not believe that is reasonable. Of course, the prison won't.

I'm not saying the NC IIC is evil, as it does good work for many inmates claiming wrongful convictions. However, when it comes to Ms. Mangum, the NC IIC is compromised in a quid pro quo in receiving $50,000 indirectly from the three Duke Lacrosse players. Comprende?; March 31, 2026 at 6:07 PM
dhall said...: As Mangum is now out of prison, it is no longer reasonable to expect them to provide a copy of the questionnaire.

With that said, Yes, an inmate in a North Carolina prison can obtain a copy of the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission questionnaire. While they may not have direct online access, inmates can request these forms through prison staff or legal services.

Your “Duke LAX players quid pro quo” conspiracy theory is getting old quickly. You keep throwing that out with no proof whatsoever, and you apparently think that having no proof IS proof.
You know that Mike Nifong gave the NC IIC money as well, right? Why isn’t he mentioned in your conspiracy theory? He’s more responsible for the fallout on Crystal Mangum from the LAX debacle than any Duke LAX player.; March 31, 2026 at 7:42 PM
dhall said...: As I mentioned above, the NC IIC did receive money from Mike Nifong.; March 31, 2026 at 7:43 PM
dhall said...: It’s tax time. How about instead of doing your taxes, you write a handwritten letter to the IRS explaining how much you think you should get back. Throw one of your cover letters in with it and mail it to them.
Keep in mind, the IRS deals mostly with tax processing and taxpayer services.

Let me know how that turns out for you.; March 31, 2026 at 7:49 PM
Anonymous said...: FWIW, the LAX players were going to lose their lawsuit against the city of Durham (the majority of claims had been tossed out by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit). The city's police officers have an obligation to investigate allegations of criminal activity, and Mike Nifong was not a city employee. the players could not sue the city or its officers because it was the prosecutor that sought the indictment, not the officers.

MOO, the settlement was agreed upon to stop the lawsuit from dragging on and costing the city and plaintiffs more money. The city had nothing to gain from having the lawsuit continue.
The $50,000 grant to the NC IIC was proposed by the LAX players, and the city accepted it -- they didn't have to.; April 1, 2026 at 8:15 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: dhall
As Mangum is now out of prison, it is no longer reasonable to expect them to provide a copy of the questionnaire.

With that said, Yes, an inmate in a North Carolina prison can obtain a copy of the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission questionnaire. While they may not have direct online access, inmates can request these forms through prison staff or legal services.

Your “Duke LAX players quid pro quo” conspiracy theory is getting old quickly. You keep throwing that out with no proof whatsoever, and you apparently think that having no proof IS proof.
You know that Mike Nifong gave the NC IIC money as well, right? Why isn’t he mentioned in your conspiracy theory? He’s more responsible for the fallout on Crystal Mangum from the LAX debacle than any Duke LAX player.
March 31, 2026 at 7:42 PM

Hey, dhall.

I disagree that NC IIC has no commitment to Ms. Mangum just because she's been released from prison. She still is under state custody (parole) and will be for approximately nine or so more months. Under parole she has evening curfew and must wear an ankle bracelet for a couple of more months. All that considered, she still maintains a claim of actual, factual, and absolute innocence.

Although I do not have proof of a "quid pro quo," there remains the appearance of such. Although it cannot be proven that heavily Duke University Law-ensconced Judge James C. Dever, III is biased in his adjudication of cases filed by the Duke Lacrosse Accuser, the appearance of bias nevertheless remains.

I am aware that Mike Nifong contributed about $1,000 to NC IIC, but he did so, I believe, under duress of further legal actions against him by the state. However, unlike the Duke Lacrosse players, he did not file a lawsuit against the city of Durham. The settlement was a face-saving measure by the plaintiffs in their unsuccessful pursuit of $10 million from the Bull City.; April 4, 2026 at 7:27 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Hah! So you admit that the Duke Lacrosse players filed a LOLsuit against the City of Durham. Clearly they were emboldened to pursue $10 million/each from the city following their easy out-of-court settlement with Duke University which capitulated and forked over $20 mill/each without a fight... probably expecting insurance to cover the amount.

After fighting the lawsuit for approximately seven years, the lawyers for the Duke Lacrosse players made out like bandits... clearly the players should have dropped their LOLsuit against the city years earlier. The city's grant of $50,000 to settle the lawsuit, was a bargain for it, no doubt. Sure, the city did not have to accept accept the $50,000 settlement offer, but as you mentioned, it had nothing to gain by drawing out the litigation. Only plaintiffs' lawyers were in position to benefit by continuing the fight.; April 4, 2026 at 7:37 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

Two reasons why I will not take up your suggestion: (1) It's unlawful; and (2) I am a patriotic American.

Surely, like most sensible Americans (of which I include you) I do not approve of our warmongering dictator spending taxpayer money on military to invade sovereign nations and terrorizing people residing in the country, but what measly crumbs are left over are directed toward social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, social security to help the many citizens who are suffering due to the billionaire/Epstein-class Republicans who are currently in power.

I appreciate the challenge, but because of the above, I will not accept it.; April 4, 2026 at 7:47 AM
dhall said...: At no point did I state that “ NC IIC has no commitment to Ms. Mangum just because she's been released from prison”.
What I wrote was in response to your statement “As far as asking the prison for a copy of the NC IIC questionnaire application, I do not believe that is reasonable. Of course, the prison won't.” Of course the prison won’t provide Mangum with that document- she’s no longer in prison. She can request it through normal means now.

With regard to my IRS comment, I was drawing an analogy between your delivery of Mangum’s letter along with yours to the NC IIC.
Both the IRS and the IIC have procedures that must be followed correctly. Mangum (I’m sure with your guidance) attempted to go around those procedures. You act as if it’s the NC IIC is at fault. It’s not.

You also pretend that Judge Dever’s at fault that you can’t file a meaningful legal document because you refuse to do any research and your filings fail. It’s not Judge Dever’s fault you don’t understand what you’re doing. It’s yours.

In your last statement alone, you identified 2 of your accusations that have no proof (but somehow made it into your LOLsuit). There’s a legal term for that. I’ll leave it to you to research what that term is.
Oh, you also have no proof of the “20 mill/each” settlement with Duke. That settlement has never been disclosed, and the outcome of the (disputed) IRS tax lien against Reade Seligmann considered the basis for this amount have never been made public.; April 4, 2026 at 9:03 AM
Anonymous said...: While the LAX 3 had to settle their LAWsuit with Durham, it did do several things that were of benefit to Durham residents.

It led the DPD to revise its procedures for photo lineups (General Order 4077).

It led to stricter protocols regarding the timely disclosure of all evidentiary findings to defense attorneys.

It led to policy changes ensuring a more objective review of evidence.

It lead to better Police Leadership and Training.

It lead to a long-term shift in the culture of the DPD, with a renewed focus on careful, evidenced-based investigations.

It led to a shift toward greater accountability in the broader criminal justice system, including stricter requirements for prosecutors regarding the disclosure of exculpatory evidence.

To attempt to place it in the same category as your LOLsuits is shameful. Name 1 thing your LOLsuits have done that have benefited the residents of Durham.; April 4, 2026 at 2:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Sid - on March 29, you stated “…Keep in mind that the lawsuit's purpose was to procure legal counsel for Ms. Mangum, who had been blacklisted by attorneys in the private sector”

Exactly where in the original lolsuit was this requested relief? Page or paragraph will suffice.; April 5, 2026 at 11:43 AM
Anonymous said...: Here you go, Sid; April 6, 2026 at 6:20 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

While in prison, inmates were unable to receive hardcopy mail, including an application from the NC IIC. So, there was no way she could have received a NC IIC application while in prison. As you suggest, it might be possible for her to pick up a hardcopy of the NC IIC application. I will pass your reasonable suggestion on to her.

Regarding your analogy, they weren't comparable... one is illegal, the other is not.

Judge Dever, like most other black-robers, denies Ms. Mangum access to the courtroom by granting dispositive motions by the defendants. That's a hard nut to crack.

With regards to the settlement with Duke University, it's public knowledge that each of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants received $20 million from the university. An Artificial Intelligence assessment reads as follows:
"In 2007, Duke University reached undisclosed, confidential settlements with the three falsely accused Duke lacrosse players—Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans—following the dropped rape charges. While the exact figures were confidential, reports indicated the settlements were significant, sometimes linked to, but not officially confirming, reported $20 million figures per player."

Consider yourself enlightened.; April 8, 2026 at 8:34 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Hah! Are you kidding... or just naive?

The establishment of Durham Police Department policy measures is nothing more than a face-saving measure for the Duke Lacrosse player-plaintiffs because of their failure to exact one penny from the city of Durham. It is all for show.

When it comes to practicality, this same justice system allowed an innocent person to be indicted, convicted, sentenced and served fourteen years of wrongful imprisonment for a trumped up charge for a crime not committed ... at least not committed by Ms. Mangum.

Fact is, the three Duke Lacrosse plaintiffs were seeking $10 mill each from the city... their lawyers undoubtedly believing it would be as easy as attacking Iran and forcing it to submit to Israel and Trump (before February 27th.); April 8, 2026 at 8:46 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

In the relief section of the initial complaint, #2 reads: "Defendant meets immediately with Harr and Mangum to allow presentation of evidence of Mangum's innocence."

In order for the NC IIC to consider representing Ms. Mangum, it is necessary for NC IIC to receive some information about the case. Heretofore the NC IIC had refused to allow me to present evidence of her innocence.

Additionally, other motions in the case requested a court order for appointment of legal counsel for Ms. Mangum from the Durham Public Defender's Office and/or the North Carolina Indigent Defense Services.

So, yes, the purpose of the lawsuit was to seek legal counsel for Ms. Mangum. If NC IIC had only followed the law, this lawsuit would never have been filed. Comprende?; April 8, 2026 at 9:01 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

$69.99 for a Duke lacrosse sweatshirt? Too pricey.

Join the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong and receive a FREE tee-shirt.; April 8, 2026 at 9:07 AM

Saturday, February 28, 2026

Crystal Mangum and Sidney Harr's Motion for Reconsideration

73 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me