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

Saturday, February 28, 2026

Crystal Mangum and Sidney Harr's Motion for Reconsideration

NOTICE: New Substack posted on Sunday, May 17, 2026
"The cause of Reginald Daye's death according to the Durham District Attorney's Office... And then there's the truth!"

147 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
Anonymous said...: I shouldn't have to explain this to you.
" "Defendant meets immediately with Harr and Mangum to allow presentation of evidence of Mangum's innocence."
Allowing presentation of evidence is NOT the same as having the NC IIC represent someone.
The appropriate actions to present information to the NC IIC are laid out on their website (you could've looked them up if you bother to do any research), and CGM could've completed that process at any time while in prison. You chose not to do so. That's your fault.
¿Comprende?; April 8, 2026 at 9:53 AM
dhall said...: "... So, there was no way she could have received a NC IIC application while in prison." It's not difficult to understand, Dr. Harr -- Mangum could have asked the prison -- either prison staff or legal services -- for the questionnaire .

"Regarding your analogy, they weren't comparable... one is illegal, the other is not." Which one? What law are you reading that made you come to the decision that one of these is illegal?

"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." Judges grant dispositive motions all the time. You need to stop looking at WHO is granting the dispositive motion and look at WHY it's being granted. If you could file a legal motion that had SOME merit this wouldn't happen.

"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." Do you bother to read what you're posting? The settlement has never been disclosed and there is no official confirmation of the $20 million/player amount.
Thank you for proving my point that you have no proof that they received that amount.

Consider yourself enlightened.; April 8, 2026 at 1:40 PM
Anonymous said...: BZZZTT!
“Defendant meets…” is not “defendant represents…”.But thank you for playing.
Why you would ask for representation from the PDO or IDS in a civil suit makes no sense, either. You can’t force the state to retry Mangum for murder, and I think (thanks to you) CGM had exhausted her post-conviction petitions.; April 8, 2026 at 5:36 PM
THE GREAT KILGO said...: WHERE IS KENHYDERAL?; April 8, 2026 at 8:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Not even if you paid me $69.99 to join.; April 12, 2026 at 6:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Where you at, Sid?
Has Kenny contacted you or his great friend, CGM? Visited? How come he hasn’t come here and posted about it? Is it because The Great Kenhyderal cut and ran once he realized Walt, Abe, Dr. Caligari, and others (the people whom he so aggressively mocked and pilloried) had been "dead right" all along?; April 12, 2026 at 9:09 AM
Anonymous said...: What? "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."
The recommendations were endorsed by the Education and Training Committee of the North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission, which is responsible for professional standards for criminal justice officers across the state.

"...their lawyers undoubtedly believing..." Now you're reading minds?

I ask you again, since you obviously failed to respond the first time. Can you name 1 thing your LOLsuits have done that have benefited the residents of Durham?; April 14, 2026 at 7:22 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Great Kilgo.

I believe kenhyderal is in Canada.; April 16, 2026 at 4:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

I'm in Raleigh, NC.

With regards to kenhyderal, you will have to ask him.; April 16, 2026 at 4:59 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous
BZZZTT!
“Defendant meets…” is not “defendant represents…”.But thank you for playing.
Why you would ask for representation from the PDO or IDS in a civil suit makes no sense, either. You can’t force the state to retry Mangum for murder, and I think (thanks to you) CGM had exhausted her post-conviction petitions.
April 8, 2026 at 5:36 PM

Hey, Anony.

The Durham Public Defender's Office and the North Carolina Indigent Defense Services are authorized and financially supported to provide legal post-conviction counsel... especially if under a court order. There's nothing, to my knowledge, that precludes those legal entities from engaging in giving counsel in civil actions filed by Ms. Mangum.; April 16, 2026 at 5:08 AM
Anonymous said...: "There's nothing, to my knowledge, that precludes those legal entities from engaging in giving counsel in civil actions filed by Ms. Mangum.
April 16, 2026 at 5:08 AM"
Perhaps you should do some research to expand your knowledge (hell, even a 1-minute google search would have helped).

There are no public defenders for civil cases. The constitutional right to a free, government-appointed lawyer applies only to criminal prosecutions, not to lawsuits between private parties.

The IDS represents indigent defendants in civil trials under North Carolina law, which includes cases where imprisonment or a fine of $500 or more is likely to be adjudged.
Note 2 things with the IDS:
1) They represent indigent defendants, not plaintiffs. (it's right there in the first sentence on their web page - "We help defend the accused.")
2) They represent indigent defendants when cases where imprisonment or a fine of $500 or more is likely to be adjudged. There was no monetary threat for Mangum (she was the plaintiff), and there was no threat of imprisonment likely to be adjudged.

IDS also provide council for hearings on petitions for writs of habeas corpus, motions for appropriate relief, and hearings for revocation of probation.; April 16, 2026 at 5:44 AM
dhall said...: I'll note your failure to respond to my comments from April 8, 2026 at 1:40 PM.
From your lack of response, I take it that you have been enlightened by that comment. You are welcome.; April 16, 2026 at 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Even funnier….Sid said in January stated “…the main relief sought is for NC IIC to allow me to present evidence of Ms. Mangum's innocence…”. At no point in THAT comment did he mention “procuring legal counsel”.; April 17, 2026 at 4:53 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

Your April 8, 2026 @ 1:40PM comment is pasted below:

dhall
"... So, there was no way she could have received a NC IIC application while in prison." It's not difficult to understand, Dr. Harr -- Mangum could have asked the prison -- either prison staff or legal services -- for the questionnaire .

"Regarding your analogy, they weren't comparable... one is illegal, the other is not." Which one? What law are you reading that made you come to the decision that one of these is illegal?

"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." Judges grant dispositive motions all the time. You need to stop looking at WHO is granting the dispositive motion and look at WHY it's being granted. If you could file a legal motion that had SOME merit this wouldn't happen.

"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." Do you bother to read what you're posting? The settlement has never been disclosed and there is no official confirmation of the $20 million/player amount.
Thank you for proving my point that you have no proof that they received that amount.

Consider yourself enlightened.
April 8, 2026 at 1:40 PM

With regards to asking correctional officials for a NC IIC application would have been a waste of time. I would assume that NC Adult Corrections does not have copies of such applications.

With regards to your analogy about not filing tax returns, that represents an illegal act. I respect the law too much to violate it willfully.

With regards to dispositive motions being granted, I am sure you would find the vast majority of cases dismissed are from pro se plaintiffs... regardless of merits. Additionally problematic is that many black-robers issues orders in pro se cases without providing explanation for their rulings... most simply issue single-page boiler-plate orders.

Regarding the out-of-court settlement between the Duke Lacrosse players and Duke University, Artificial Intelligence will provide a settlement amount of $20 million for each of the three lacrosse players.

Let me know if further edification is required.; April 18, 2026 at 5:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Mangum's contention is that she needs legal representation for her criminal case as she claims absolute innocence in Mr. Daye's death. In 2017, the NC Prisoner Legal Services abandoned her as a client and she has been unable to obtain legal counsel for her criminal case since.

Furthermore, the Durham Chief Public Defender stated she would assign public defender counsel for Ms. Mangum if she received a court order demanding it. As you know, all of the judges Crystal and I contacted, refused.

Similarly, the NC IDS stated it would provide counsel for Ms. Mangum if given a court order... and such representation would be directed toward her criminal case. Again, black-robers refused Mangum's requests for a court order to assign her legal counsel.; April 18, 2026 at 5:45 AM
Dhall said...: Your artificial intelligence didn’t provide a settlement amount - it provided no official confirmation. This, of course, means it’s a guess.
So, thanks again you for proving my point that you have no proof that they received that amount.
It’s simple, really. Show me a statement from either party confirming the settlement amount. Until then, stop guessing.

“With regards to asking correctional officials for a NC IIC application would have been a waste of time. I would assume that NC Adult Corrections does not have copies of such applications.” In other words, you don’t know, and didn’t bother to do any research about it.

I’m glad we agree that following IRS policy and procedure is a good thing. Based on your comments, you agree that following IIC policy and procedure is a good thing as well. So that begs the question, why didn’t you and Mangum do so?
With regards to lawsuits (yours and yours on behalf of Mangum), they fall until roughly 3 categories:
1) Failure to state a claim
2) time barred (past the statute of limitations)
3) Barred by res judica (Sid-specific)
There’s no need to provide additional explanations for these.; April 18, 2026 at 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: “Mangum's contention is that she needs legal representation for her criminal case as she claims absolute innocence in Mr. Daye's death. In 2017, the NC Prisoner Legal Services abandoned her as a client and she has been unable to obtain legal counsel for her criminal case since.”
Your and CGM’s contention is pointless. Her murder criminal case is over. She was convicted, subsequent appeal failed, as did various MARs and Habeus Corpus. She doesn’t get a do-over.
She theoretically could get a writ of Coram Nobis filed, but she doesn’t automatically get a public defender for that. Add to that you already filed one in 2023. I don’t know how many attempts she gets. What was the ruling on the Coram Nobis filing? I don’t think you ever commented on it after filing it.; April 19, 2026 at 8:31 AM
PJ said...: Sid,

Notwithstanding your claims to the contrary, Mangum has not made, nor can she make, a claim of actual innocence. Her/your claim is that the stab wound inflicted by her was not a proximate cause of Mr. Daye's death. Even if that is so, it doesn't negate the fact that she stabbed Mr. Daye, the stabbing was intentional and not justified (i.e., not done in self defense) and that Mr. Daye was injured as a result of the stabbing. Those facts, which are indisputable and have already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, support a conviction for felony assault with a deadly weapon (and possibly other charges).

In other words, you and Mangum have not presented a valid claim of actual innocence - meaning that she did not commit any crime whatsoever in stabbing Mr. Daye - but only that she was convicted of the wrong crime. That is not actual innocence. The IIC does not exist to engage in that kind of sophistry, or to pursue frivolous civil lolsuits.

Also, your claim is based on a written report by a pathologist who is now dead and unavailable to authenticate the report, testify as to his findings, or face cross examination. I see no way Dr. Wecht's report can be accepted into evidence or be the basis for decision to reverse a 12+ year old conviction.

Finally, the information that formed the basis of Dr. Wecht's report was available at the time of Mangum's trial. His report was not based on newly discovered evidence or evidence that was unavailable at the time of trial.

Mangum took her chances at trial and she lost. The verdict and sentence will stand. The courts will not allow you to collaterally attack the conviction thru silly civil lolsuits. Any avenues Mangum had to challenge her conviction in the proper court(s) have been foreclosed.

You and Mangum may disagree with her conviction and sentence, but there is nothing either of you can do about it (except get yourselves into further trouble with the courts). You have my guarantee on that and, as you well know, my track record on these things is pretty darned good.

Mangum has a lot of years left to live. She should try to make the best of her time and lead a good and productive life. She needs to be mindful of the fact that she is out of second chances. The next time she gets arrested for a crime the plea offer will be "Plea as charged or go to trial." If she gets convicted, she will go straight to jail or prison.

You need to find another cause or hobby to pursue because this one is neither a healthy nor productive use of time.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL; April 21, 2026 at 6:05 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Abe.

First of all, Ms. Mangum was neither indicted nor convicted of assault with a deadly weapon.
Second of all, Ms. Mangum did in fact, according to her, stab Mr. Daye in self-defense as he was straddled atop and strangling her. Daye's aggressiveness could be supported by his act of busting down the bathroom door where Ms. Mangum sought sanctuary from her jealousy enraged boyfriend.

Keep in mind that Mangum's innocence is of a higher standard than actual... hers is absolute, as per defined in the Harrism: "In a case in which no crime is committed, innocence is absolute." The manner of Daye's death was an accident (per world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril H. Wecht), and not a homicide.

With regards to Dr. Wecht's passing, his assistant Meredith Wessel can authenticate his findings, and has done so in an
Oxygen True Crime article.

Though the information upon which Dr. Wecht based his report, his October 25, 2019 report was not available at time of the November 2013 trial.

I disagree with your advice that Ms. Mangum take no action to overturn her conviction. As things now stand she is considered a convicted murderer who is further vilified with regards to the Duke Lacrosse case. I believe it is vital that she clear her name.

Finally, once Ms. Mangum's unjust case is resolved, my attention will be directed towards freeing Shan Carter who was wrongly sentenced to two death penalties.; April 23, 2026 at 5:14 AM
Anonymous said...: "Second of all, Ms. Mangum did in fact, according to her, stab Mr. Daye in self-defense..."
She claimed self-defense during the trial -- meaning she admitted to stabbing day. She doesn't have a valid claim of actual innocence. She has no evidence that proves she wasn't involved with the stabbing of Mr. Daye. The court found that the stabbing ultimately led to Daye's death.

"hers is absolute, as per defined in the Harrism...". let us know when "Harrisms" become law.; April 23, 2026 at 10:27 AM
dhall said...: You should direct your attention to the families of victims like Demetrius Greene, an innocent 8 year old child killed by Shan Carter.; April 23, 2026 at 3:54 PM
Anonymous said...: “ Mangum did in fact, according to her, stab Mr. Daye in self-defense..” Evidence presented at her trial proved she did not stab Daye in self-defense. That IS a fact.; April 23, 2026 at 5:11 PM
Anonymous said...: "my attention will be directed towards freeing Shan Carter who was wrongly sentenced to two death penalties."
Shan Carter is:
a drug dealer
a thief
a kidnapper
a 3x murderer (including an unarmed man and an 8-year-old child).
He wasn't "wrongly sentenced". He earned his sentence through his own actions.
He'll rot in hell for those actions, and I'd gladly be the one to pull the lever that sends him there.
Pretty sure someone else expressed this opinion, but I'm in total agreement with it -- I wouldn't p*ss down Shan Carter's throat if his guts were on fire.; April 24, 2026 at 7:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Wecht's opinion is not new evidence. Neither is Meredith Wessel's.; April 24, 2026 at 8:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey Sid, When’s the wedding?; April 25, 2026 at 9:49 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

It is not in dispute whether or not Ms. Mangum stabbed Mr. Daye... in fact, she did! What seems to be ultimately the issue in dispute is whether or not the stab wound contributed to Daye's demise. Clearly, the nonfatal stab wound was successfully treated and had no hospital record of any complication stemming from the wounding and/or its treatment.

Events leading to Daye's death were precipitated by an errant esophageal intubation in treating his delirium tremens. After re-intubation properly in his trachea and 20 minutes of CPR, spontaneous circulation was restored, but he was thereafter brain dead... and his elective removal from life-support was due to due to his irreversible brain-death caused by the errant intubation.

The stab wound was not related to Daye's delirium tremens or his errant esophageal intubation.; April 30, 2026 at 5:08 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

It is truly unfortunate about young Demetrius' death... which was surely a freak accident as the bullet fired ricocheted off the steering wheel and struck the boy (who was not in Carter's field of vision) in his head, resulting in his death. Sad as it is, there is nothing that can be done for Demetrius or his family.

Shan Carter, meanwhile, is on death row for a manner of death which is accidental regarding Demetrius. He should never have been convicted of capital murder in Demetrius Greene's death... possibly an involuntary manslaughter charge would have been more appropriate. Do you agree?; April 30, 2026 at 5:15 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Au contrare, mi amigo. Evidence tended to lend to Mangum's narrative that she acted in self-defense when stabbing Daye in his left flank. Consider the fact that the doorframe was busted from its jamb by Daye... that clumps of Mangum's hair was found at the bathroom door threshold when Daye dragged her by her hair... that Mangum's face displayed fingernail puncture wounds and a swollen lip... and that steak knives strewn around the bedroom comport with Mangum's narrative that Daye brought the knives from the kitchen and threw them at her for target practice.

I am unaware of any testimony at trial that contravenes Mangum's self-defense defense.

However, the self-defense defense is really not vitally relevant because the State cannot prove that the knife wound and/or its treatment resulted in Mr. Daye's death.

If you still believe my position to be in error, I would appreciate any elucidation you can provide.; April 30, 2026 at 5:27 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Let's suppose your premise is accurate and that Shan Carter is a drug dealer, a thief, a kidnapper, and a murder. Is it your contention he is therefore not deserving of justice? Clearly the two deaths for which he accepts responsibility are: 1) a freak accident in the death of a boy; and 2) self-defense in the death of an armed drug dealer who (it was public knowledge) had threatened the life of Carter.

You need to get your facts straight regarding Shan Carter. A drug dealer and burglar... yes, but a kidnapper? Who did he allegedly kidnap? Also you give him credit for three deaths (which you define as murder). Can you enlighten us as to the nature of the third so-called murder?

It seems your contempt for Mr. Carter is excessive, especially since you most assuredly have not met him or spoken to him. I have. Yes, he has made mistakes... some serious and even fatal. But from knowing him after more than a year's worth of weekly visits, I do not believe the level of your scorn is warranted.

I would like to see you show a little bit of humanity in this tragic case.; April 30, 2026 at 6:23 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Dr. Cyril Wecht's October 25, 2019 eight-page report was never considered by the court at Mangum's trial or in any post-conviction courts despite my efforts on October 31, 2019 and afterwards to present evidence of the renowned forensic pathologist's report to prosecutors, pols, and media-types. Because his report has not been under consideration by the courts, it is new evidence. The same goes with Ms. Meredith Wessel, who, as Dr. Wecht's assistant, is able to testify on behalf of the late celebrated physician/attorney.; April 30, 2026 at 6:29 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

As you may know, the prison wedding planned in 2020 was well underway before the NC Department of Public Safety 86'd it due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Now that she is released and still on parole, I am focused on getting her conviction overturned. That will provide her with time to decide whether or not she wants to marry a man who is more than thirty years her senior.

So, in response to you question, I don't know.; April 30, 2026 at 6:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Wecht's opinion is based on evidence available at the time of the trial. Therefore, it is not "new evidence" -- it's a different opinion derived from existing evidence.
"New evidence" would be something like DNA evidence that proves Mangum didn't stab Daye, or eyewitness testimony that proves she was somewhere else at the time of the stabbing....Or an affidavit from a witness stating that their testimony was coerced.; April 30, 2026 at 8:41 AM
Anonymous said...: https://www.wect.com/story/34201082/convicted-killer-sues-claiming-a-conspiracy-to-keep-him-on-death-row/

"Shan Carter, 42, is convicted of killing three people in two separate incidents, including the kidnapping and murder of Donald Brunson on Dec. 6, 1996, and the murders of Tyrone Baker and an innocent bystander, 8-year-old Demetrius Greene, on Feb. 16, 1997."

Tyrone Baker was a drug-dealing scumbag, but Carter's self-defense claim is bogus. Answer these questions:

1) Carter claims that Baker "made deranged death threats that he was going to kill any and everybody involved with the theft of his 40,000 dollars in drug money". In the 1997 incident, Baker attacked Temony and HIT him, knocking him to the ground. Carter claims Baker was armed (even though eyewitnesses stated otherwise). If Baker was armed, why didn't he SHOOT Temony instead?

2) Do you believe that shooting someone who's running away is self-defense?

3) Do you believe that Shan Carter did know that others could be harmed by him firing his gun on a crowded street corner, even though he meant to only harm Baker?

4) Do you believe that Carter has no liability in the death of Demetrius Greene just because Baker was his target?; April 30, 2026 at 9:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Mangum pled self-defense at her trial. She lost.
Testimony against this self-defense claim included Milton Walker's testimony, the presentation of evidence collected by crime scene investigators, such as photos of Daye's injuries taken while he was in the hospital, and blood and DNA analyses conducted by the State Crime Lab.
Consider yourself "elucidated".; April 30, 2026 at 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: "Hey, Anony.

Mangum's contention is that she needs legal representation for her criminal case as she claims absolute innocence in Mr. Daye's death. In 2017, the NC Prisoner Legal Services abandoned her as a client and she has been unable to obtain legal counsel for her criminal case since."

Mangum's criminal case is OVER. She lost the court case, she lost the appeal, she's lost her attempts at various MARs and Habeus Corpus, and she's served her time.

"Furthermore, the Durham Chief Public Defender stated she would assign public defender counsel for Ms. Mangum if she received a court order demanding it. As you know, all of the judges Crystal and I contacted, refused."
You CAN get a public DEFENDER for counsel in civil suits in North Carolina. The thing about that is you have to be the DEFENDANT.

Similarly, the NC IDS stated it would provide counsel for Ms. Mangum if given a court order... and such representation would be directed toward her criminal case. Again, black-robers refused Mangum's requests for a court order to assign her legal counsel."
See above. It's not called the Indigent Defense Services because they like the initials.; April 30, 2026 at 2:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Makes sense. I'm sure CGM only agreed with this "marriage" because you told her it would lend some credence to your lolsuits with you filing them as her "husband" (or since the wedding was "delayed" due to Covid-19 restrictions, her "fiance").
Since your attempts obviously failed, I'm sure that she's rethinking her agreement.; May 3, 2026 at 8:14 AM
DHall said...: Shan Carter was himself an "armed drug dealer", and at the time of killing Tyrone Baker and Dermetrius Greene, violating N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1 (possession of a firearm by a convicted felon).
According to Shan Carter himself, “[Baker] ran and I went behind him shooting at him.”. Chasing someone (especially an unarmed man) while shooting at them is not self-defense.
Self-defense becomes assault when the force used is excessive, continues after the threat has ended, or if the person claiming self-defense was the initial aggressor..

At the time of the murders, Shan Carter had what is called a "duty to retreat" before pulling his gun and shooting Tyrone Baker (the shooting occurred before NC's "stand you ground" laws went into effect -- and his self-defense claim would have failed even under current "stand your ground" law. Self-Defense eases the moment the immediate danger is neutralized.).

He didn't do so, and his actions lead to him assaulting and killing Tyrone Baker, and while doing so killing Demetrius Greene.

Your knowing Shan Carter after more than a year's worth of weekly visits, doesn't change these facts. It simply shows that you have bought into his delusional beliefs that judges, district attorneys, and defense lawyers were working against him as to not expose corruption in the court system.

You've bought into these beliefs because they're similar to your own. That doesn't make them true -- it simply shows you both suffer from the same delusions.; May 3, 2026 at 8:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Take a look at the latest Substack. Mr. Harry Ruiz was wrongly convicted of second-degree murder, served 25-year prison sentence before being released on parole, and yet, after evidence was presented to Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg, whose Post-Conviction Justice Unit reinvestigated the case, asked the court to overturn Mr. Ruiz's conviction.

The problem is that Durham D.A. Satana Deberry is no Manhattan D.A. Bragg... she lacks his courage and integrity. Deberry won't even meet with me!!!

Problematic with Mangum is her not having access to post-conviction legal counsel. Many black-robers had an opportunity to order the Durham Public Defender's Office and NC Indigent Defense Services to assign an attorney to represent Ms. Mangum, but they have all refused. There will be much more on this on an upcoming Substack.; May 4, 2026 at 5:50 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous
https://www.wect.com/story/34201082/convicted-killer-sues-claiming-a-conspiracy-to-keep-him-on-death-row/

"Shan Carter, 42, is convicted of killing three people in two separate incidents, including the kidnapping and murder of Donald Brunson on Dec. 6, 1996, and the murders of Tyrone Baker and an innocent bystander, 8-year-old Demetrius Greene, on Feb. 16, 1997."

Tyrone Baker was a drug-dealing scumbag, but Carter's self-defense claim is bogus. Answer these questions:

1) Carter claims that Baker "made deranged death threats that he was going to kill any and everybody involved with the theft of his 40,000 dollars in drug money". In the 1997 incident, Baker attacked Temony and HIT him, knocking him to the ground. Carter claims Baker was armed (even though eyewitnesses stated otherwise). If Baker was armed, why didn't he SHOOT Temony instead?

2) Do you believe that shooting someone who's running away is self-defense?

3) Do you believe that Shan Carter did know that others could be harmed by him firing his gun on a crowded street corner, even though he meant to only harm Baker?

4) Do you believe that Carter has no liability in the death of Demetrius Greene just because Baker was his target?

April 30, 2026 at 9:19 AM

Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the link. I plan on covering Shan Carter in a later Substack.

With regards to answering your questions:
(1) I think it was well established that threats were made by Baker to take the life of the person(s) who stole his money... and Baker had determined that Carter was responsible. Carter may have been set up, as he stopped to sell drugs after being flagged down. Tyrone Baker approached him with a overcoat draped over his weapon. When Carter saw Baker approaching him, he drew his weapon and fired before Baker. After being mortally wounded Baker ran a good distance before dropping dead in the street. Thereafter his girlfriend approached and interfered with the crime scene as she took Baker's weapon and left with it.
(2) Carter hit and mortally wounded Baker with his first two shots when facing him. After Baker turned and started to flee, Carter wildly fired his gun as an incentive to persuade Baker to continue running and not turn around to return fire... the latter shots fired by Carter were not intended to strike Baker, and they did not.
(3) I don't think Carter was thinking about bystanders as he was likely running purely on adrenaline... surely had he not been under fear of his life he might have had presence of mind to aim at a safe place which would prevent injury to person or property.
(4) I believe Carter was liable for Demetrius Greene's death, and he takes responsibility for it. I do believe his death was an accidental freak accident, and therefore he should not have been indicted on a murder charge. I would think an involuntary manslaughter charge would have been appropriate, but definitely not a death sentence.

Hope this provides elucidation.; May 4, 2026 at 6:25 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, dhall.

I think forensics will clearly show that the bullets that struck Baker did so being shot in the front. Had he been shot while running away, the bullet entry wounds would have been in his back.

Although Baker was running away after being shot, the threat had not ended because he was armed (or perceived to be so by Carter) and could turn around and fire at Carter. From my conversations with Carter, his cover fire was to chase Baker away while he was making an effort to get into his car and drive away.; May 4, 2026 at 6:37 PM
Anonymous said...: From the opinion denying Carter's appeal:

"Defendant fired repeatedly and recklessly at his intended victim while he was running down a busy residential city street crowded with innocent people. Defendant's actions demonstrate an egregious and callous disregard for the sanctity of life and the safety of others. Only fate prevented defendant from being charged and convicted of several more murders."

Hope this provides elucidation.; May 4, 2026 at 6:43 PM
Anonymous said...: I suggest that you contact Demetrius Greene's mother and tell her that you are writing a substack on Demetrius' "accidental freak accident" in your attempt to spare Shan Carter from the death penalty.; May 4, 2026 at 6:46 PM
Anonymous said...: You didn’t answer my questions, Sid, so I’ll ask again.

1) If Baker was armed, why didn't he shoot Temony? There is NO PROOF that Tyrone Baker was armed, and eyewitness reports have stated he wasn’t. The only persons making the claim that he was are Shan Carter and now you. Show your proof.

2) Do you believe that shooting someone who's running away is self-defense?

3) Do you believe that Shan Carter did NOT know that others could be harmed by him firing his gun on a crowded street corner, even though he meant to only harm Baker?

4) intent follows the bullet. Carter’s intent was to shot someone, and he did. Do you believe that Carter has no liability in the death of Demetrius Greene just because Baker was his target?

The definition of involuntary manslaughter is “The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or intent to cause death or serious injury.”
While Demetrius Greene wasn’t Carter’s target, Carter definitely intended to cause death or serious injury at the time he killed that child.; May 4, 2026 at 9:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Mangum had post conviction legal counsel for her criminal conviction. She doesn’t get legal counsel for “her” ridiculous civil lolsuits when she’s the plaintiff. That’s the way it works.

DeBerry doesn’t have to meet with you. You’re not Mangum’s lawyer, you weren’t a witness, and you have no new evidence about the stabbing death of Reginald Daye.; May 4, 2026 at 9:24 PM
DHall said...: I haven't seen any forensic reports from the shooting, so I can't comment to that. My comments regarding the shooting were from the State v. Carter lawsuit, which states :After defendant fired the first shot, Baker turned and ran around the corner, moving down 10th Street. According to defendant, “[Baker] ran and I went behind him shooting at him.”. It appears to me that Baker was attempting to flee -- perhaps being struck by the first shoot (the lawsuit doesn't day).

Carter did not know that Baker was armed (eyewitnesses state that he wasn't), and Carter initiated the shooting.

This fails to meet the criteria for self-defense for the following reasons:

The force being used was excessive.
Even if the victim approached Carter "in an aggressive manner", Carter was the initial aggressor.
Tyrone Baker attempted to flee, and Carter "went behind him shooting at him." At the point Baker attempted to flee, the threat had ended.; May 5, 2026 at 6:57 AM
Anonymous said...: " I believe Carter was liable for Demetrius Greene's death, and he takes responsibility for it".
he killed an innocent 8 year old child. Taking responsibility means acknowledging your role in situations, owning your actions and decisions, and being accountable for their outcomes.
It's simple -- if you don't want to be held accountable for murder, don't kill people.; May 5, 2026 at 7:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Excellent point regarding Sid's delusions, dhall.
Sid, both you and Shan Carter you should read this, then seek help.; May 5, 2026 at 7:27 AM
Nana D said...: Sidney: What is the status of your lawsuits?; May 5, 2026 at 5:24 PM
DHall said...: I noticed Dr. Harr has posted a new Substack (his first since December, I believe, on supposedly "weekly" updates). This had me wondering -- Why create a Substack when he already has this blog?
It's not about monetization -- if it were, he'd be asking for paid subscriptions on Substack. He could just as easily (or more so) use AdSense and affiliate marketing here on blogger.
It's not about user experience -- blogger is more user-friendly.
Substack does require users to log in in order to read older entries and to comment on them. This login requires users to have a valid email address, so Dr. Harr could (potentially) use that information for direct email communication to subscribers, allowing for targeted "community building". He'd need more than the 2 subscribers he currently has for this to actually work.
So I have to ask -- why bother? Why bother posting anything about Shan Carter on a Substack labeled "World v. Crystal Mangum"?
I guess that makes as much sense as posting about Mangum's murder trial and subsequent conviction (or Carter's murder trial and subsequent conviction) on a blog called "Justice4Nifong".
Perhaps Dr. Harr can enlighten us.; May 8, 2026 at 7:41 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, DHall.

The overriding reason for creating the Substack was mainly for the purpose of reaching a larger audience. It is my perception that a Substack article might also be considered to be more credible or more legit than a blog. As you noted, monetization is not a motive. Regarding login e-mail addresses, that is not as objective either... I haven't even attempted to look up e-mails of visitors to my Substack page.

With regards to the mentioning of Shan Carter on a Substack labeled "World v. Crystal Mangum," the reason is most likely due to its impact or comparison with Mangum's case. For example, consider the fact that I've written about former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Leticia James. The upcoming Substack will feature wrongfully convicted, released, and exonerated New Yorker Harry Ruiz. Like Shan Carter, Mr. Ruiz been enveloped by their respective criminal justice systems... as has Ms. Mangum.

Other reasons for the Substack is that I have recently reserved using my blog site to post legal briefs and documents... something that I would not post on Substack.

Regardless of the names of my blog site and Substack page, they are both directed towards dialogue about the criminal justice system.

Consider yourself enlightened. Let me know if further elucidation is required.; May 9, 2026 at 5:37 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Nana D.

My last lawsuit, filed with Ms. Mangum, had to do with compelling the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission to follow the law and inquire into Ms. Mangum's claims of actual/factual/absolute innocence. Despite the fact Ms. Mangum had been unable to retain attorneys from the private sector (which blacklisted her as a client), the Duke-related black-rober Judge James C. Dever III refused to order the Durham Public Defender's Office or the North Carolina Indigent Defense Services to assign an attorney for her. And, unsurprisingly, he granted the dispositive motion of the NC IIC to dismiss the case I filed on behalf of Ms. Mangum and myself.

The succinct answer to your question is that currently I have no pending lawsuits before the courts.; May 9, 2026 at 5:46 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

Neither Mr. Carter nor I disagree with you that he was responsible for Demetrius's death... and he takes responsibility for it.

Clearly his death was due to a freak accident as he was not even in line of sight when the bullet ricocheted off a steering wheel and struck him in the head. My contention is that the matter of his death was an accident and definitely did not warrant a capital murder conviction. At the most, Mr. Carter should have been criminally charged with nothing more than involuntary manslaughter.; May 9, 2026 at 5:52 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

You suggest I contact the mother of Demetrius Greene, but towards what end? Please explain why you believe so doing would be appropriate. If anything, contacting his mother might do nothing more than rekindle memories of remorse. I cannot find anything positive in reaching out to the mother of Demetrius and reminding her of his untimely death.; May 9, 2026 at 5:57 AM
Nana D said...: Sidney: Will you be filing more lawsuits? Does Crystal have a claim for compensation from North Carolina for wrongful imprisonment?; May 9, 2026 at 6:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Shan Carter has been held accountable for his actions. He refuses to accept that accountability. Shan Carter is not taking responsibility for his actions.

Yours is a ridiculous argument. Shan Carter intended to kill someone that day. Intention follows the bullet. Shan Carter murdered an innocent 8 year old child.

If it were CGM’s child, you’d agree with me. So would she.; May 9, 2026 at 6:05 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

I believed I answered your questions before, but will address them again.

1) Carter told me the following: Tyrone Baker was armed with a gun hidden under an overcoat as he approached him. Carter fired first, one wound being fatal, and he ran away without returning fire and collapsed in the street. Baker's girlfriend witnessed the incident and ran to Baker and removed his firearm from the scene. I have no proof... I was not at the crime scene. I only recount the narrative of the fatal shooting incident as told to me by Mr. Carter.
2) No. Keep in mind, the first to shots from Carter struck Baker fatally, and the remaining shots fired were not aimed to strike the fleeing individual (and did not strike him as there were no wounds to his back), but instead were used as cover fire while he retreated to his car. The first two shots by Carter were self-defense as they struck Baker while he was advancing towards Carter... so that was self-defense.
3) Adrenaline was flowing in Carter when he believed his life was in imminent danger, so I doubt that he spent time considering the possibility of collateral damage/injury. Also, I do not recall that the street corner, where the incident took place, as being crowded.
4) Having spoken to Shan Carter, he told me his intent was to wound Baker and prevent him from shooting him first... this was followed by un-aimed indiscriminate firing in the general area of the fleeing Baker to dissuade him from returning fire. As repeatedly stated, Carter and I both believe he has liability for Demetrius' freakish unintentional death.

Carter is liable for Greene's death despite the fact that the cover fire towards Baker was not intended to strike or kill Baker. So I disagree with your premise that the shots Carter fired after the first two were intended to strike or kill Baker.

Clearly, by your definition of involuntary manslaughter, Carter is guilty of that charge in the death of Demetrius Greene. With regards to Baker, Carter acted purely in self-defense. Have you heard of "stand your ground?"; May 9, 2026 at 6:30 AM
Anonymous said...: DHall explained why “stand your ground” doesn’t apply.
I find it curious that you believe Carter’s claim about Baker being armed, and refuse to believe any of the eyewitnesses.
You do not believe that shooting someone while they’re running away is self-defense….Apparently unless Carter is doing it. That’s some torturous logic, there Sid.
What is your definition of crowded? There were at least 10 people at the scene of the shooting. Some of them Carter’s “customers”. You’d think one of these would confirm Baker being armed. None of them did.

Carter intended to kill somebody that day. That he killed an innocent child along with his target is not involuntary. Intent follows the bullet. Shan Carter is reaping what he sowed. He earned the death penalty.; May 9, 2026 at 8:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Why would it be appropriate? You treat Shan Carter as the victim and take his story to be true. Why not speak to the REAL victims and get their side of the story and let your readers make the decision about who’s telling the truth.

D’April Greene wakes up every morning knowing that piece of sh*t Shan Carter took her innocent child’s life. I guarantee you she doesn’t feel remorse (you should look up the definition of that word - she has nothing to feel guilty about ). What she feels is anger and a desire that justice be done. You’re afraid of telling her story because you know it’s true, and it would show the world how delusional you are.; May 9, 2026 at 9:06 AM
dhall said...: “Credibility” would be defined by the article’s content - not the platform used. So far, nothing you’ve posted on this blog or Substack contains any credibility, as you either can’t find sources to back up your claims, or you can’t find laws that support them.
There are a number of quality Substacks that address topics like law and ethics or the intersectional nature of law and politics. You should try comparing your rants against those, and you’ll quickly see why you’re not reaching a larger audience.

Shan Carter’s case had no impact on Mangum’s case. The only comparison between the two is the delusional persecution complex both you and Carter share.; May 10, 2026 at 9:57 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Nana D.

There are no plans at present to file any lawsuits. Ms. Mangum does have grounds for filing lawsuits, however.

Regarding her wrongful imprisonment, if she is exonerated and receives a Pardon of Innocence, then I believe she would be eligible for compensation for wrongful imprisonment (I believe $75,000 per year of wrongful incarceration which is capped at $750,000).; May 11, 2026 at 8:44 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: dhall
“Credibility” would be defined by the article’s content - not the platform used. So far, nothing you’ve posted on this blog or Substack contains any credibility, as you either can’t find sources to back up your claims, or you can’t find laws that support them.
There are a number of quality Substacks that address topics like law and ethics or the intersectional nature of law and politics. You should try comparing your rants against those, and you’ll quickly see why you’re not reaching a larger audience.

Shan Carter’s case had no impact on Mangum’s case. The only comparison between the two is the delusional persecution complex both you and Carter share.
May 10, 2026 at 9:57 AM

Hey, dhall.

Almost everything I publish on blog and Substack are substantiated with links to articles and documents. Is there anything specifically that you can point to which you believe questions its credibility. Be more specific and I will address it.; May 11, 2026 at 8:51 AM
DHall said...: Not one lawsuit you've posted contains laws that support your claims. That's why the failed.
Your blogs and Substacks are colored by your on personal biases, which aren't substantiated by the articles and documents you link.
A couple of thigs that you posted on the Substack that have no credibility:

"However the accompanying felony charge enabled, through the "felony-murder rule," to upgrade the non-capital murder charge to first-degree...". That's been proven false many times by commenters here, yet you keep stating it as though it were true.

Your attempt to "link" the conviction of the conviction of Ruiz to Mangum neglects the fact that there was obvious misconduct by the DA's office by suppressing new evidence. There is no new evidence that proves CGM is innocent, and no evidence suppressed by the DA's office.

There is no proof that CGM suffered from a deprivation of due process rights.

That's just from the last 2 Substack articles. I could keep dissecting them, but it's not worth my time.; May 11, 2026 at 9:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Another example of your "credibility" is provided below:

"To begin, let’s establish indisputable and irrefutable facts:

In wee morning hours of April 3, 2011, Crystal Gail Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse Accuser, poked her alcoholic boyfriend Reginald Daye once in his left side with a steak knife as he was straddled atop, strangling her in a jealous rage;"

This claim is demonstrably false. The prosecution presented Mr. Daye's version of the stabbing in which he claimed he had let Ms. Mangum go and was leaving. He claimed she grabbed a knife as he was leaving and stabbed him. The prosecution cited blood spatter in the hallway as support for that version of events. Ms. Mangum had the opportunity to present her version in her testimony. The jury accepted the prosecution's version of the events and rejected Ms.Mangum's.

While I understand that you accept Ms. Mangum's version and that you reject the prosecution's version, your claim that Ms. Mangum's version is "indisputable and irrefutable" is demonstrably false. In making this claim, you expose yourself as a liar.

I ask that you apologize to your readers on both this blog and the substack for your dishonesty.; May 12, 2026 at 11:52 AM
Nana D said...: Sidney: Please explain to us the grounds for Crystal’s lawsuits.; May 15, 2026 at 4:24 PM
Anonymous said...: “Almost everything I publish on blog and Substack are [sic] substantiated…”

“Almost”. You can call it deceptive message production.

"The closer to the truth, the better the lie, and the truth itself, when it can be used, is the best lie." – Isaac Asimov; May 16, 2026 at 9:50 AM
Nana D said...: Sidney: We’re waiting.; May 16, 2026 at 3:34 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Nana D.

Currently Ms. Mangum has no lawsuit pending. If there's a particular lawsuit you are interested in the basis for it, could you specify the lawsuit about which you have questions.; May 16, 2026 at 7:00 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Nana D.

If you want to know the basis for the filing of a lawsuit, please specify the lawsuit because Ms. Mangum currently has no legal case pending.; May 16, 2026 at 7:05 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Anony.

I assume the [sic] is related to the verb which you evidently believe should be the singular "is" instead of "are." Unlike many media-types I welcome corrections in my grammar. I checked with Gemini, and you are correct. The answer give was:
The Rule of Indefinite Pronouns
The subject of your sentence is the pronoun "everything."

In English, "everything," "everyone," "anything," and "something" are classified as singular indefinite pronouns. Even though "everything" implies a large group of things, it treats that group as a single, collective block.

Because the subject is singular, it requires a singular verb.

Thank you for the correction!

With regards to your "deceptive message production" comment, I no more understand it than I do Isaac Asimov's quote.; May 16, 2026 at 7:15 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, DHall.

Ms. Mangum's murder case is much more egregious than that of Mr. Ruiz because the medical examiner and the prosecutor were dishonest. Her defense attorney was unprepared and ineffective, and the judge was far from impartial as he allowed a jury that was biased by a third against Ms. Mangum to be impaneled. Specifically, the ME Dr. Clay Nichols testified that Daye's spleen was removed during emergency surgery and was not available for examination at autopsy eleven days later. His testimony was even impeached by his own autopsy report which described the spleen in detail... an organ which he testified had been removed.; May 16, 2026 at 7:29 PM
Nana D said...: Sidney: On May 11 at 8:44 AM, you stated that Crystal has grounds for filing lawsuits. I am interested in learning what the grounds are for the lawsuits she has not yet filed.; May 16, 2026 at 7:35 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Hey, Nana D.

She has grounds for filing a Motion for Appropriate Relief to overturn her wrongful conviction. In addition, she has the opportunity to file a libel/defamation lawsuit against some media-types.; May 17, 2026 at 5:45 AM
Anonymous said...: While you may feel CGM has grounds for filing a MAR, she doesn’t. She is limited in the types of claims that can be made, and these claims have already been used in previous failed MARs.

CGM has no reason to file a defamation lawsuit against “media-types”.

So there’s your answer, Nana D. CGM won’t be filing lolsuits in the near future, and now that she’s out of prison, Sid will not be filing those lolsuits in her name.; May 17, 2026 at 6:17 AM
DHall said...: “…the medical examiner and the prosecutor were dishonest. Her defense attorney was unprepared and ineffective, and the judge was far from impartial…”
These are simply unproven statements you’ve made in the past. Statements you have made repeatedly in your legal filings that were rejected as false.
“ Specifically, the ME Dr. Clay Nichols testified that Daye's spleen was removed during emergency surgery and was not available for examination at autopsy eleven days later. His testimony was even impeached by his own autopsy report which described the spleen in detail... an organ which he testified had been removed.”
At any point was there any statement by Dr. Nichols or the prosecution that Daye died due to damage to his spleen? Did anyone at any point state that the presence or absence of his spleen was the cause of death?; May 17, 2026 at 4:31 PM

Saturday, February 28, 2026

Crystal Mangum and Sidney Harr's Motion for Reconsideration

147 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me