Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010
Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,634 Views)
mike in houston
Member Avatar

MillikenTHS
.The jury questions involve the three contributing to the abuse or neglect of a child charges and the resisting an officer charge.

http://twitter.com/MillikenTHS#
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

MikeZPU
Dec 15 2010, 08:13 PM
~J~ is in Wonderland
Dec 15 2010, 07:50 PM
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/bullseye/home


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.
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 ...
Chatham
Quote:
 
If the jury finds that teh damages are not over $200 then they can find guilty on a lesser damage charge.


(next post)
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

Even if Mangum didn’t mean to set the building on fire, McCullough argued, she’s still responsible for the natural consequences of her action




Acc Esq
Quote:
 
This is indeed a valid instruction. The intent element is an intent to perform the act, not the intent to cause the consequences.


That makes it sound as if a person who purposefully fires a gun at a wall, which unknowingly kills a person on the other side of the wall, would be guilty of 1st degree murder. We could go into kids with fireworks in a house also here.

I find it hard to believe Crystal anticipated burning the clothes in the tub, those belonging to the man she was having the domextic dispute with, would start the structure on fire. If I wanted to burn the house (or duplex) down, I sure wouldn't start the blaze in the bath tub.

What ever the verdict is on the arson, I do hope she is jailed for any crimes they did prove. And I do not believe the judge said he would not seek to take the children if she was found not guilty of arson. I see cases everyday where they take children for NEGLECT where most would not see neglect, so it's pure BS to say the conviction is necessary to take them. Even if the house did not burn, the smoke and possibilty it might is NEGLECT.


(I agree with Quasi that the intent of the DA's office may have been to not get a conviction. The lesser charge being unattended is rather telling in itself)



BIG BIG BIG THANKS to Chatham and all reporting here!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jewelcove

MikeZPU
Dec 16 2010, 11:26 AM
I would like to emphasize something that was addressed in passing:

Mangum, keenly aware that Milton suffers from paranoid schizophrenia,
kept telling Milton that she was going to tell everyone that he had a small
penis
and, in fact, she was going to take a picture of it and post it everywhere.

She is one mean witch (or that other word that rhymes with witch.)
This small d*ck comment keeps flashing my mind back to Kim's parting comment to the at 610 B in March 2006. Didn't she tell 60 Minutes that she had insulted the party goers with a derogatory comment about the size of their "junk" and how they used it?
Edited by jewelcove, Dec 16 2010, 01:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeKell
Member Avatar
Still a Newbie
33 readers! Ah feels like old times :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

mike in houston
Dec 16 2010, 01:01 PM
MillikenTHS
.The jury questions involve the three contributing to the abuse or neglect of a child charges and the resisting an officer charge.

http://twitter.com/MillikenTHS#
To me, just speculating, they've already found her not guilty of the 1st degree arson charge.

And now it sounds like some members of the jury question whether Mangum should have even
be arrested in the first place. I hope I'm wrong, but that's how I am interpreting the question.

Well, Durham has to live with the monster they created. This monster will become even bigger,
more empowered, more recklessly arrogant (if possible) if she walks on all the charges.

AND the kids will suffer the most.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jmoo

Black female foreperson
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
~J~ is in Wonderland
Member Avatar
~J~ is in Wonderland
MikeZPU
Dec 16 2010, 01:21 PM
mike in houston
Dec 16 2010, 01:01 PM
MillikenTHS
.The jury questions involve the three contributing to the abuse or neglect of a child charges and the resisting an officer charge.

http://twitter.com/MillikenTHS#
To me, just speculating, they've already found her not guilty of the 1st degree arson charge.

And now it sounds like some members of the jury question whether Mangum should have even
be arrested in the first place. I hope I'm wrong, but that's how I am interpreting the question.

Well, Durham has to live with the monster they created. This monster will become even bigger,
more empowered, more recklessly arrogant (if possible) if she walks on all the charges.

AND the kids will suffer the most.

I sure hope your are wrong...for the kids sake.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jmoo

I'm having a very hard time hearing... Jury had 3 questions:

What constitutes lawful arrest? Judge re-read original instructions.

What is the legal definition of abuse & neglect? Judge re-read whole instruction & statute definition of abuse/neglect. 1. Defendant at least 16 years old 2) defendant caused children to be in place/pos whereby they can be abused/neg 3) ?? 4) willful. Definitions - "Abused children" - juv less than 18 whose parent/guar/cust creates or allows to be created a substantial risk of serious risk of injury. "Neglected children" juv who does not receive proper care or discipline from parent/custodian/etc

Third question had to do with abuse/neglect also.


The judge also explained that the jury only needed to consider the abuse charge if they found guilt with respect to the arson charge.

Back to the jury room....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
~J~ is in Wonderland
Member Avatar
~J~ is in Wonderland
The jury has returned to its room, although a lunch break is imminent. I saw lots of serious expressions and no smiles on their faces.
Millken THS
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jmoo

~J~ is in Wonderland
Dec 16 2010, 01:26 PM
MikeZPU
Dec 16 2010, 01:21 PM
mike in houston
Dec 16 2010, 01:01 PM
MillikenTHS
.The jury questions involve the three contributing to the abuse or neglect of a child charges and the resisting an officer charge.

http://twitter.com/MillikenTHS#
To me, just speculating, they've already found her not guilty of the 1st degree arson charge.

And now it sounds like some members of the jury question whether Mangum should have even
be arrested in the first place. I hope I'm wrong, but that's how I am interpreting the question.

Well, Durham has to live with the monster they created. This monster will become even bigger,
more empowered, more recklessly arrogant (if possible) if she walks on all the charges.

AND the kids will suffer the most.

I sure hope your are wrong...for the kids sake.
It sounded like they (judge & prosecution) believed the jury was struggling with whether CGM communicated a threat or not. Said it didn't matter since she wasn't changed with that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jmoo

Victoria just arrived.... Jackie's already here.

Jury coming back in courtroom.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
~J~ is in Wonderland
Member Avatar
~J~ is in Wonderland
jmoo
Dec 16 2010, 01:26 PM
I'm having a very hard time hearing... Jury had 3 questions:

What constitutes lawful arrest? Judge re-read original instructions.

What is the legal definition of abuse & neglect? Judge re-read whole instruction & statute definition of abuse/neglect. 1. Defendant at least 16 years old 2) defendant caused children to be in place/pos whereby they can be abused/neg 3) ?? 4) willful. Definitions - "Abused children" - juv less than 18 whose parent/guar/cust creates or allows to be created a substantial risk of serious risk of injury. "Neglected children" juv who does not receive proper care or discipline from parent/custodian/etc

Third question had to do with abuse/neglect also.


The judge also explained that the jury only needed to consider the abuse charge if they found guilt with respect to the arson charge.

Back to the jury room....
Quote:
 
The judge also explained that the jury only needed to consider the abuse charge if they found guilt with respect to the arson charge.


The Judge has said this many times.

Maybe --they have found her guilty of the arson charge already????
Maybe that's why they are asking about the abuse charges????

Right......?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jmoo

Lunch break until 2:45
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
~J~ is in Wonderland
Member Avatar
~J~ is in Wonderland
Crap....
Edited by ~J~ is in Wonderland, Dec 16 2010, 01:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jmoo

Sorry but I'm going to head out -- needed to leave by 3p anyway...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply