| CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,636 Views) | |
| retiredLEO | Dec 16 2010, 11:27 AM Post #481 |
|
WTDV web site says the Durham County Court System opens at 11:00, does anyone know if this happened? |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 16 2010, 11:28 AM Post #482 |
|
http://democracydurham.blogspot.com/2010/12/officer-tyler-has-some-skeletons-in-his.html "Officer" Tyler Has Some Skeletons In His Closet! Near the end of the trial the defense tried to get "Officer" Tyler's personnel records admitted into evidence. This guy has been in trouble before and very recently with complaints lodged against him. The DPD lawyer was able to keep the records out but it was clear that there was something in them that would not have looked very good if they had been brought out into the open. I suspect that we will be hearing more about this guy as those allegations are dealt with. Remember that name: "Officer Tyler", you'll no doubt be reading more about his exploits in the future. Steven Matherly Posted by Steven Matherly at 10:01 AM |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 16 2010, 11:28 AM Post #483 |
|
Deleted User
|
I agree, Quasi. One must always be suspicious of any dealings of the court in Durham with Crystal Mangum. I am surprised that she did not insist on testifying, however. Maybe she did, but her lawyer knew better than put that can of worms on the stand. |
|
|
| abb | Dec 16 2010, 11:29 AM Post #484 |
|
http://democracydurham.blogspot.com/2010/12/trial-goes-to-jury.html Thursday, December 16, 2010 The Trial Goes To The Jury The local media don't do justice to what is happening in that courtroom. In thirty seconds or a few paragraphs they can't really get into the meat of the matter. That's if they were in least interested in actually telling their readers/viewers what this trial is all about. Judge Jones seems inclined to take the police at their word and to shut down any attempt to, as he puts it, "put the police on trial". Given this situation the defense appears to be trying to say something like: Even IF Ms. Mangum did set the fire the charge of arson is the wrong charge. The defense in no way admits to anything but given that it seems to be off limits to challenge the police's version of events they are trying to show that even then the lighting of the fire doesn't rise to the level of arson. In her closing argument Mani Dexter reminded the jury that there had been charges of Attempted Murder, Communicating Threats, and Identity Theft all of which had been dismissed. Those were "over charges" she said and arson was an "over charge" as well and should have been dropped. Personally, I hate to see the police get off without being directly challenged on their lies. There were many instances where the different police officers contradicted each other and even their own testimony so I have to assume the jury will see that they are lying. The defense has chosen this strategy and I hope it works. Two things stick out for me in this trial. One is the mysterious appearance of that lighter in the pictures that the Fire Inspector couldn't seem to find when he looked for a source of the fire. The other is the fact that Crystal was interrogated when she was clearly in pain and unmedicated for that pain from a lumbar puncture. I call that torture! She even asked at one point "It sounds like you want me to say I lit the fire" and she did just that while wincing in pain soon after. Steven Matherly Posted by Steven Matherly at 9:56 AM |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 16 2010, 11:30 AM Post #485 |
|
Deleted User
|
There was a reference to this by Chatham in his reporting yesterday. It seems Officer Tyler has had complaints lodged against him for improper procedures in entering homes where there is a reported domestic dispute. |
|
|
| ~J~ is in Wonderland | Dec 16 2010, 11:39 AM Post #486 |
|
~J~ is in Wonderland
|
court is open! |
![]() |
|
| jmoo | Dec 16 2010, 11:51 AM Post #487 |
|
Somethings up, jury is coming into courtroom |
![]() |
|
| jmoo | Dec 16 2010, 11:52 AM Post #488 |
|
Nothing... apparently they all just got here & came into court to get their "verdict envelope". |
![]() |
|
| jmoo | Dec 16 2010, 11:53 AM Post #489 |
|
Matherly is the only one here from Crystal's crew. |
![]() |
|
| jmoo | Dec 16 2010, 11:54 AM Post #490 |
|
Other than that, only 3 reporters in the courtroom (including me
|
![]() |
|
| jmoo | Dec 16 2010, 11:55 AM Post #491 |
|
Crystal & her attorney, the baliff (sp?), a court reporter & court assistant (?) ... are the only ones "across the wall". |
![]() |
|
| chatham | Dec 16 2010, 11:57 AM Post #492 |
|
This is indeed a valid instruction. The intent element is an intent to perform the act, not the intent to cause the consequences. It would be hard to argue that she set the fire in order to destroy the building. If that intent was not present, then does the Arson charge hold? Wouldn't a better charge have been, destruction of personal property? above taken from Quasi. ======================================== This was well defined in the instructions. One does not need to destroy the building for it to be 1st degree arson. The only requirements as I understood them was something more than smoke damage inside the dwelling. Pictures ( I did not see them) Showed the bathtub quite involved in the fire. It appeared to be one of these plastic type tubs and it was charred and blistered up. There was also pealing of the wallpaper which is defined as more than slight fire damage or smoke damage. It as charred enough to catch on fire and cause significant damage, according to definition. Based on the definitions of intent as relates to arson, crystal may be found guilty on that charge. The destruction of personal property is already a charge because of the damage to the car. The judge decided to instruct the jury in two different ways, One was damage to the car over $200 which is more serious than the second possibility of just damage to the vehicle. The third choice here would be not guilty to damage. The other arson, choice other than 1st degree arson, the ADA had was 2nd degree arson which is a less of a charge. The ADA did not want to include 2nd degree arson as a charge. |
![]() |
|
| Kerri P. | Dec 16 2010, 11:57 AM Post #493 |
|
Maybe folks decided to go and do their shopping or take care of other business. Or can her supporters see the writing on the wall as it's put. |
![]() |
|
| chatham | Dec 16 2010, 12:05 PM Post #494 |
|
No one nows if there were any complaints lodged against Tyler. They were rumors brought up by the defense. SO the defense was fishing to get his personnel files to see if there were any complaints. The request was denied. It was denied after the ADA had a personnel person present to the judge the reason why personnel files are and should remain confidential That personnel person also argued to the Judge that if he felt it necessary to subpoena them, then she would request that he review then in camera and only release for the record those parts relevant to the defense. The judge was hesitant to do any of that with personnel files. Then there was some discussion about not personal records which I did not quite understand. In the end the judge did not allow those personnel records to be subpoenaed. Please remember that the request was based on rumor an not fact. The may have been something or may not. That is why the ADA said it was a fishing expedition. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 16 2010, 12:15 PM Post #495 |
|
Deleted User
|
"a pattern of improperly entering resident's homes." This sounds like more than a "fishing expedition" to me. It sounds like inside knowledge. |
|
|
| 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