| CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,639 Views) | |
| chatham | Dec 15 2010, 06:33 PM Post #436 |
|
Let me add a few quick comments. There will be no jury verdict today. The judge wanted them to stay until 6 pm but one of the jurors could not. There was quite a debate over the instructions to the jury so it took a whole lot longer to get the jury ready for debate than planned. Depending on the weather the jury may meet later than 8:30 in the am and they can call to get instructions. TV is there and they ther is supposed to be a pool. ABC tv had a camera there and I saw wral and told them where WTVD was. He thanked me. lol The N&O blogger jesse was there was well as the herald sun and one other reporter who I did not identify. More later. Its been a long day in court. |
![]() |
|
| nyesq83 | Dec 15 2010, 07:12 PM Post #437 |
|
Thanks to all, once again, for dedicating your personal time and for painting a clearer picture that is so far from the filtered "truth" that we get from biased news outlets. (As an example, NBC nightly news called the Senate vote today on the extension of the Bush tax cuts "the vote on President Obama's tax cuts"). Blogging is discouraged at work so I can't comment as much as I used to. They canceled work for tomorrow due to the possible sleet/snow headed our way (paranoia after the Dec and Jan storms last year) so I will be shopping for a while and at home rest of the day so I will be following reports as much as I can. Thanks!!! Edited by nyesq83, Dec 15 2010, 07:19 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Dec 15 2010, 07:26 PM Post #438 |
|
Since Crystal isn't testifying, this means that none of those involved in a blatant frame-up attempt of three innocent students has ever been made to testify in court about their actions, other than the "Rogue Prosecutor" himself--and questioning of him was strictly limited to a narrow range. (Why isn't Tara Levicy on the stand being cross-examined about her role?) And likely, none will be. (Judge Beaty has already effectively blocked testimony for more than three years.) The Durham Consortium appears to be very capable of closing ranks and protecting its own. (JMOO) |
![]() |
|
| chatham | Dec 15 2010, 07:48 PM Post #439 |
|
Today was a tough day for everyone. But lets keep it short. The defense started after some issues were settled between the judge, defense and himslef. The defense, once again, made a motion to enter into evidence the whole video, Jusdge asked them to approach and then asked the jury to leave. Judge asked what the purpose. Defense says 1) wants complete tape to be in evidence not just parts. 2) to impeach Investigator Bond about Mangums characterizations and 3) 14th amendement and state sonstitution issues. After some repetitive discussion the judge denied the motion. Jury comes back. As a note, the jury was very noisy in the jury room and the cop had to ask them to quiet down. The defense next wanted to play the 911 tape so she set up for the jury to hear the 911 tape. Before the 911 tape was layed the jury was asked to leave again due to the defense motion to put on the record personnel records for officer tyler based on rumor that he had previously entered residences without the proper warrants. ADA said it was a fishing expedition and as fact if there was any Brady issue with Tyler inn that regard it would already be in evidence. The judge did agree to release government records. Not sure what that means. After arfuments that asted for a while the judge denied the defense request. Jury comes back in and hears the 911 tape. After that there was a few moments of silence and one could see the jury wondering what was going on. It turned out that the defense was waiting on a Mangum friend, an elderly lady, Peggy Kirkpatrick to get to the witness stand. She was asked if she knew Mangum and she responded yes, from church. Do you know crystals children. Yes they play with her grandchildren. Do you recall the night of Feb 17-18 2010. Yes, Who called you. Crystals boy called. What did he tell you. OBJECTION by the ada. sustained for hearsay. Jury was asked to leave. Out of the presence of the jury Ms Kirkpatrick was asked what did Richard tell you. Mommy was getting hit and come over. ADA objected as the back door way to get information about crystals drug use and to avoid the hearsay issue. Defense said it was no different that the cop Tyler asking Milton was this his home. All agreed that Ms Fitzpatrick and the defense could only say that she told the child to call 911. So ADA objection sustained. Jury brought back. Quest. As a result of what Richard told you what was going on. what did you tell the child. Another question, another objection. Sustained. Question. Since feb. have you observed Mangum. Doo you know if she is able to support her children. Objection. called to judges bench. go back to tables and judge sustains. Lawyer talking with Mangum. Then No more questions your honor. ADA then asked Ms Kirkpatrick you did not see anything that happened? No witness excused. Call your nexrt witness. One moment your honor/ Defense rests. Morning break. Her lawyer was talking with Mangum and she was not looking to happy. Jury kept away. Defense objects to all the evidence and charges. Judge determines that Malice and oner other charge are tied to the 1st degree arson charge. The judge gives a brief overview of what he wants to present to the jury as instructions. Defense proposed her own instructions. Judge comments, your on think ice. lol Everyone is reviewing. Supposedly clarifies what malice is. That is what malice means with regard to the arson charge. ADA. point is to clarify, not get off into side issues. They they got oiut of my league by talking about state v sexton 2003 and state v allen 1988 and which may be better. ADA pointed out quite correctly that arson law in NC is well developed and has been around since the early 1800's. The a substantial argument regarding the arson charge and discussions about footnotes as relating tothe 5th element of the arson charge. The the defense wanted an instruction presented to the jury that the cops who testified were interested parties to the case, Rule 104-20. Judge laughed and explained why he never uses that rule when cops are involved. Each side will talk about 30 minutes. Or so they said. Then there was a 4th 5th and 6th amendment argument which the judge ruled on legally and the defense cannot argue that. Defense wants to argue the common sense issue of that and not the legal side of that/ After much additional discussion the judge will allow but he will be listening. The there was a juror issue. She will be dismissed based on some early issue that the judge agreed to. It was nothing the juror did wrong. Next up the afternoon session. |
![]() |
|
| ~J~ is in Wonderland | Dec 15 2010, 07:50 PM Post #440 |
|
~J~ is in Wonderland
|
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/bullseye/home Crystal Mangum could face up to seven years in prison as a jury decides whether she set her own apartment on fire. The 12-member panel began deliberating Wednesday after closing arguments by prosecutor Mark McCullough and defense attorney Mani Dexter. Deliberation could continue Thursday, depending on the weather. Police accuse Mangum of slashing her boyfriend Milton Walker’s tires, smashing his windshield and setting a pile of his clothing on fire in their bathtub while her three children and two police officers were in the apartment. Mangum is charged with arson, injury to personal property and child abuse, along with resisting a public officer for allegedly struggling during her arrest and giving officers her sister’s name and birth date. Superior Court Judge Abe Jones ruled three charges of contributing to the abuse or neglect of her children would rise and fall on how the jury handled the arson charge. He promised to dismiss the abuse charge if the jury doesn’t find Mangum guilty of arson. |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 15 2010, 07:58 PM Post #441 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Just a couple things for people just coming in and trying to search thru 30 pages: Crystal admitted on Video to setting the fire and smashing her boyfriend Milton Walker's windshield with a vacuum cleaner and in the next sentence said "He's Crazy," of her ex-boyfriend. However, Crystal told the Police to leave immediately when they arrived and her Defense lawyer did not subpoena the Ex-Boyfriend. She also decided it wasn't a good idea to put Crystal on the stand. Someone is going to question the prudence of putting weeks of defense/preparation into this case in particular. . |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Dec 15 2010, 08:13 PM Post #442 |
|
Did Judge Jones tell the jury this? That's very interesting. If the Judge told the jury this, they may be more inclined to find Mangum guilty of the arson charge ... I think ... Edited by MikeZPU, Dec 15 2010, 08:17 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 15 2010, 08:21 PM Post #443 |
|
Deleted User
|
"Someone is going to question the prudence of putting weeks of defense/preparation into this case in particular." Who would question this in Durham? After all, Crystal is Durham's poster child. She represents the accepted culture apparently. The judge twisted himself into a knot to make certain that Crystal had the benefit of every doubt. I say she walks on all charges and it makes me want to spit. |
|
|
| chatham | Dec 15 2010, 08:22 PM Post #444 |
|
Afternoon session was closing arguments. Judge declares that closing arguments are not evidence, etc etc. ADA passed as first so Dexter got up and talked. Last opportunity to talk with you. Many mistakes happened on the 17th-18th. Mistake that mangum teased milton. Mistake tha tmilton hit mangum. Mistake that crystal scratch him while getting out of his neck hold. That led to the call to Ms kirkpatrick to tell the kids to call 911 to get the copsto the residence. Cop thompson entered the residence alone. A mistake. Officers entered residence even when crystal said she did not need help and wanted them to leave. A mistake. Milton comes to the door, arms scratched the kids get scared and run. COps should have left milton outside, a mistake, house too small for this domestic. I am gonna stab you if you come back into the house, charge was a mistake, was meaning less because crystal had no knife near her. The charge was dropped. The cops could have brought mmilton out of the house then but did not, a mistake. Arrested crystal instead. She was on the ground handcuffed, all a mistake. If anyofthose things had not happened, we would not be here today. COps knew crystal name because they found her name on paper work in the car. She told them where to find it and knew her name was on it. Is it any surprise that crystal gave a false name since cops let milton back into the house. If the jury finds that teh damages are not over $200 then they can find guilty on a lesser damage charge. Arson charge most serious becasue it is a felony. If she is convicted judge has no choice but to sentence her to 36-86 months (if not correct then close) ADA objected here, Both approach bench. Long discussion, sat back down at tables, judge called them up again, then sat back down again. Judge overruled the objection. Defense continues. Not every burning at a house is arson. There is burning in fireplaces, BBQ inside house, burn stuff in sink etc. some may get a little out of control, burn stuff, char stuff scorch stuff, but t hey are all accidents. One does not call them arson. Because there is no intent to burn the house, if there is no intent then there is no arson. Must figure out intent. Defense said the intent was 1. milton beat mangum in front of the kids. 2) milton left and his stuff was too. 3) damage to milton car. 4) fire was in the bathtub, the safest place in house to start one, has water and a shower. 5. fire dept took 3 minutes to get the hose out and put out fire with a quick turn on - turn off of the hose. 6. but cant read my writing lol. All evidence shows intent to burn miltons clothes not burn the house down. And just plain wrong on some charges like identity theft, etc. Crystal is still over charged with the arson charge and I ask you to come back with a not guilty verdict. thats the defense. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 15 2010, 08:35 PM Post #445 |
|
Deleted User
|
It is SO GOOD to see postings from Hooligans that I have dearly missed. I remember when the site was hacked, because I couldn't get back on for a LONG time. The work of the pincipals on this board is astonishing. If I were ever in a mess with the powers that be and needed friends, I'd want you in my corner. Come to think about it, you'd be welcome in my house around my house fire anytime.... roaring right now in anticipation of yet another "icy rain". Glad you have heat, J. |
|
|
| chatham | Dec 15 2010, 08:45 PM Post #446 |
|
ADA. Note the ADA was very animated. What a smoke screen has been set up in front of your face. Mistake? Set a fire in a bath tub and no one is there. What did mangum think would happen. What happens to an unattended fire. As a result of her actions, that bathroom becomes consumed with fire. Dexter wants you to believe the police were at fault. She had a knife at some point, she slashed the tires. Luck was involved here. Luck that we are not talking about 3 dead children. Who is responsible for their children, keep them out of jeopardy, .. a parent, a mother in this case. Walker may have beat her, but does that allow her to burn his clothes. Is she so mad that she does not care if her children burn? Her defense attorney said right in front of you she set the fire. OBJECTION False name, shows crystal is only interested in herself. Injury to property, she admitted that to Investigator bond on tape. Contributing to abuse and neglect, 3 counts, 3 children. Ok if an accident. But is a set fire an accident? Id a fire is set and unattended, whats it gonna do? remember tyler went to look for the fire, door was closed but remember it was opened when crystal was tossing clothes into the tub. Who closed it? Mangum. Did she make any attempt to get the ids out of the house? no attempt what so ever. Arson charge. Arson has 5 elements. 1. burn structure. Jury saw the pictures. Tub burned and wallpaper burned and peeling. 2. House has to be a dwelling. It was. 3. Has to be a dwelling of someone other than the defendant. It was, walker and 3 children. 4. Residence occupied at the time of the burning. It was with 2 police and 3 children. and 5. intentionally burned the premises. She certainly did, on purpose. The slighest charring is sufficient. Just look at the tub and the wallpaper. With regard tot he 5th element, the judge will instruct you this way. That the defendant did burn the dwelling intentionally, defendant did burn it herself to destroy the dwelling. etc. Defendant intentionally and voluntarily set a fiore inside the dwelling, closed the door so no one else would see it in that process the place burned. How lucky we were that tyler closed the door after he opened it to see the fire or the whole place would have been in flames. SHe set the fire and concealed it in the presence of her children. By NC law she is responsible. thats it. |
![]() |
|
| chatham | Dec 15 2010, 08:47 PM Post #447 |
|
Jury was then read instruction that the defense and ADA and judge were happy with. Jury chose a foreperson. Awaiting verdict. |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Dec 15 2010, 08:58 PM Post #448 |
|
chatham: That is exceptional recounting -- I feel like I was there. Awesome job! Thanks so much! |
![]() |
|
| ~J~ is in Wonderland | Dec 15 2010, 09:16 PM Post #449 |
|
~J~ is in Wonderland
|
Great job chatham!! Thank you so very much
|
![]() |
|
| genny6348 | Dec 15 2010, 09:17 PM Post #450 |
|
Genny6348
|
Thank you all for such great reporting! Glad you are warm again J.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |






3:32 AM Jul 11