| TORTMASTER on Crystal's other rape | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 27 2010, 12:20 PM (306 Views) | |
| Quasimodo | Feb 27 2010, 12:20 PM Post #1 |
|
(REPOST from the incindiary ramblings of the Tortmaster! These files will be CLOSED to inspection to unauthorized persons after Feb. 27, 2010 and replaced in a secure vault.) COMAN & WINSTEAD: IT'S TIME TO FILE CHARGES! Not against the Duke boys, of course, those should have been dropped at least three weeks ago. Rather, you need to file charges based upon the Creedmoor Rape. There is no statute of limitations for rape in North Carolina, and there is a helluva lot more evidence of a rape in Creedmoor than any sexual assault or kidnapping on Buchanan Street. For example -- IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANTS a. The Duke Frame/Hoax. In the Duke Hoax/Frame, you have a false accuser who was unable to identify anyone involved in her imaginary sexual assault/kidnapping until approximately three weeks after the supposed incident. Even then, she identified Dave Evans as wearing a mustache when he could not have possibly worn a mustache that day. Furthermore, she had failed to identify Reade Seligmann and Dave Evans in previous lineups. Most importantly, there are the huge problems you have fixing Michael Nifong's handiwork in setting up the world's worst photo identification session. b. The Creedmoor Hoax. The false accuser actually DATED at least one of the supposed attackers in Creedmoor, so she will be able to pick him out of a lineup immediately, and since you have the names of the other alleged rapists, she will not even have to go through a lineup, as she has already "picked" them out! DNA EVIDENCE a. The Duke Frame/Hoax. As you know the dna "evidence" in the Duke Frame actually proves that a sexual assault did not occur. Moreover, it proves that a rape did not occur, but your witness claimed that a rape had occurred for over NINE MONTHS. Dna evidence is a HUGE liability in your case against the innocent Duke boys. b. The Creedmoor Hoax. Dna is NOT a liability in the Creedmoor rape! You can just try the case the old fashioned way, without reference to dna. Moreover, you can completely avoid the whole messy "prosecutor hid the exculpatory dna evidence" problem. Instead of a "He x 3 said" versus "She said" with dna proving no rape, you have a "He x 3 said" versus "She said" where dna doesn't hurt you. PHYSICAL INJURIES a. The Duke Frame/Hoax. The injuries to the false accuser in the Frame/Hoax are WELL-DOCUMENTED, and they establish, by themselves, that your false accuser could not have been gang raped by three college athletes. There was no trauma to the false accuser's anus (and remember, because the rape was dropped, you're going to have to concentrate on Precious/Honey's anus). The mild swelling inside the false accuser's vagina is more than explained by her professional escort obligations in the days leading up to the Duke party and the "vibrator show" on the day of the party. The issue of physical injuries is a HUGE problem in the Duke Frame/Hoax. b. The Creedmoor Hoax. Who knows what physical injuries Precious/Honey will claim she had from the Creedmoor incident. The good news is that there will be no doctor's reports and no SANE reports completely CONTRADICTING the false accuser. This means you can get Travis and Mary to make stuff up like they seem willing to do at any opportunity. Travis can say, "My baby was so hurt, she couldn't walk, and she was bruised all over." What do you care if it is true or not? Obviously, evidence is not that big of an issue in Durham. The bottom line is: Physical Injuries can be a big bonus in the Creedmoor case, but they are a HUGE liability in the Duke Frame/Hoax. TIMELINE a. The Duke Frame/Hoax. Wow! You've got a big problem in the Duke Hoax case, as your timeline sucks! Your witness just changed the timeline to something that could not possibly be true. For example, she is now suggesting she was on her cellphone while she was dancing and while she was being sexually assaulted. Moreover, she is calling Jason Bissey, Kim Roberts, a ton of lacrosse players all liars, not to mention the myriad pictures that have to be altered to explain this newly fabricated timeline. And there's more bad news! Precious/Honey will still be cross-examined on the old timeline. I have just scratched the surface here, but you can see, the Timeline issue is a HUGE liability to your case. b. The Creedmoor Hoax. Good news! YOU get to set up the timeline yourselves! You don't have to deal with Nifong's abortion or the clear attempt at a cover-up that Linwood Wilson left you in the Duke Hoax. You can say when the false accuser was raped and you can say what happened next! Most importantly, the jury will give the false accuser a break because the rape happened more than 13 years ago. ALIBIS a. The Duke Frame/Hoax. I've got some more bad news for you. Reade Seligmann has the best alibi in the history of law! There are pictures, witnesses, statements, receipts, just gobs of the stuff! This evidence can, by itself, sink the Duke Frame/Hoax. If Reade couldn't do it -- as established by the tons of alibi evidence --- but the false accuser was 100% certain he was an attacker, what does that do for her identifications of Collin and Dave? Then, there are the alibis from Collin and Dave. That is just a HUGE and impossible liability for you to handle in the Duke Frame. b. The Creedmoor Hoax. Here's some more good news about the Creedmoor Hoax: Who is going to believe a 13-year-old alibi? What is suspect number one going to say -- "I was playing nintendo at home all that day"? Who is going to believe that? You are home free on the alibi issue in the Creedmoor case. ESCORT WORK a. The Duke Frame/Hoax. This is going to be a big problem for you in the Duke Frame/Hoax. The false accuser has admitted that she was doing "one-on-ones," and her driver Jarriel even described the various hotels and downtowns where she conducted business. This will all be relevant in dealing with the "bruising" issue. You can also bet that the defense team has a ton of Affidavits and videos and pictures of Precious plying her trade after the fake rape. Add on top of this the strip club video at the Platinum, which has become relevant in the Duke Hoax. This is going to be a HUGE liability for your case. b. The Creedmoor Hoax. More good news here! You get to keep any of it out (even if there is any). You won't have to attempt to rehabilitate Brian, Jarriel, H.P., Dr. O, Tammy or any of the other "prostitute" witnesses. This is a huge PLUS for your Creedmoor case. INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS a. The Duke Frame/Hoax. Wow! Where to begin .... I guess the most striking inconsistent statements to me are the number of penises she claims to have seen. Precious/Honey variously claimed 5, 0, 4, 3, 2 and only groping. The second HUGE problem you have is that she claimed there were four (4) dancers at the party! This one blows my mind! That is one seriously crappy witness you have there. Then you've got the problems with the "Matts" the "Adams" and the "Brets." She puts these folks doing different things every time she opens her mouth! And these "things" are crucial to your case. Moreover, she has some of the guys performing multiple roles. b. The Creedmoor Hoax. More good news here! As far as I know, there is only ONE statement dealing with the Creedmoor case. You don't have to worry about 15 different versions from your false accuser -- as long as you keep her shut up about it! It will just be a "He said/She said" without the problem involved with a "He said/She said, then she said, then she said, then she didn't say, then she said something completely silly, then she said, then she said, then you won't believe what she said...." EYEWITNESSES a. The Duke Frame/Hoax. Sorry about this, but you're going to have to deal with a VERITABLE TON of exculpatory eyewitnesses. Jason Bissey will set the timeline, Kim Roberts will call the rape a "crock" and say Precious was never out of her sight for more than 5 minutes, the other lacrosse players will get on the stand and say nothing happened, and the cab driver will testify about Reade Seligmann's alibi (not to mention the Evans and Finnerty alibi witnesses). Just based upon the eyewitnesses, you have no case. It will be a HUGE problem. b. The Creedmoor Hoax. Guess what? No problemo here! There is no mention of eyewitnesses in the statement Precious/Honey gave to the Creedmoor police officer, so you don't have to worry about 45+ people telling the jury that no rape could have possibly happened! CONCLUSION I would ask that you please EITHER get off your asses and file charges against the Creedmoor "rapists" OR you dismiss the Duke Frame/Hoax charges now. Every day of the hoax is another day won by hatred and prejudice. I have no doubt that you are intelligent people, and, to me, that means you are keeping the Hoax viable based on an agenda. These innocent boys have endured far, far too much and every day is a new cruelty to them. A cruelty that you can stop tomorrow. MOO The Tortmaster responds to those petty minds who have attempted to derail his opus with minor and unworthy criticisms : I realize that the Special Prosecutors do not have authority to file charges in Creedmoor because they have not been appointed in that jurisdiction for that purpose. They could, however, refer the charges to the proper authorities. Of course, if the NC AG was really interested in justice, the charges filed would be against Precious/Honey, Michael Nifong, Mark Gottlieb, et al. Those charges, like the charges against the Creedmoor "rapists," would be a helluva lot easier to prove than the charges brought in the Duke Frame/Hoax. Every day of this Hoax is a day lost to Hatred and Prejudice. MOO Edited by Quasimodo, Feb 27 2010, 12:20 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Feb 27 2010, 11:51 PM Post #2 |
|
Does Crystal have a good imagination? REPOST (compilation) http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/199004/creedmore.jpg "She stated that she reported it to the Creedmoor police who did an investigation. She stated that she was told by the investigators that it would be a long process and that at her young age it would be mentally and physically tough and very hard on her. They told her that all three of the men were currently in jail and that were going to be in jail for a significant time. The victim stated that Mr.Taylor had been in jail for pushing his Grandmother down the stairs which killed her." THE LATEST EVIDENCE: CIVIL SUIT IMPLICATIONS 1. Mangum’s 4/6/06 Statement. a. The great folks over at Liestoppers have already shown the numerous flaws in these particular “Fantastic Lies.” For example, Mangum claims there were 4 guys in on the “rape.” Then, she states that Nikki helped her put her clothes on in the bathroom, and then Nikki magically appeared in the car to meet her and ask: “Did they hurt you?” b. Mangum’s statement is not only fatally inconsistent with previous statements, but it is internally inconsistent. The same type of inconsistency that comes when a person has to repeat an intricate lie over and over again. c. Note that Mangum starts off by identifying 4 guys in the bathroom, but she eventually settles on only 3 rapists. http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=4228 2. Himan’s Creedmoor Interview. a. Benjamin Himan interviewed Crystal about her Creedmoor allegations. Mangum's claims are so inconsistent, they are mutually exclusive. First, she claims that her boyfriend Floyd Taylor is getting paid by his friends to allow his friends to have sex with her. Then, she claims that Floyd Taylor was mad because she was having sex with these same friends. Her third story was that she would have sex with the three friends when Floyd Taylor was not around, but she denied it to Mr. Taylor. b. Where’s Floyd Taylor? In the interview, Mangum claims that she chose not to pursue the charges in part because the three principals were in prison already. In fact, according to Precious, Floyd Taylor was in prison for “pushing his grandmother down the stairs which killed her.” The North Carolina Department of Corrections has no record of a “Floyd Taylor,” unless he is a 44-year-old white guy from Buncome County, who has served a lot of time in North Carolina prisons for at least 4 DWI’s. There is no other “Floyd Taylor.” Also, there is no “Floyd Trailor,” “Floyd Tailor,” or “Floyd Thayer.” There is a “Floyd Turner,” but he was born in 1925. So, where in the world is Floyd Taylor? c. It is interesting to note that Mangum lists 4 guys in her Creedmoor interview, but she eventually settles on three as her “rapists.” |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Feb 27 2010, 11:53 PM Post #3 |
|
Crystal could, of course, write a book about this first rape... (same story...) |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Feb 28 2010, 12:15 AM Post #4 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
Not necessarily... She's loopy, for one. A "date" with Crystal might be 30 minutes in a cheap motel... |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







7:15 PM Jul 10