Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010
Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,628 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

Kerri P.
Dec 16 2010, 04:07 PM
Jurors have another question. They have not even left box.
half a minute ago via TweetDeck

Are these people dumber than a pile of @@@@@?
Yes Kerri they are. This is Durham justice, remember? They are busting their collective asses to free swamp woman.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kerri P.
Member Avatar

The new question: If they find not guilty on arson, may they find guilty for three abuse/neglect charges?
half a minute ago via TweetDeck
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kerri P.
Member Avatar

Again, the jury has left for Jones and the lawyers to discuss the proper reply.
less than 20 seconds ago via TweetDeck
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

Truth Detector:

You forget - Crystal is special. :SarC:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

cks
Dec 16 2010, 04:11 PM
Truth Detector:

You forget - Crystal is special. :SarC:
So true. It's kind of hard to take down your city's poster child.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Kerri P.
Dec 16 2010, 04:10 PM
The new question: If they find not guilty on arson, may they find guilty for three abuse/neglect charges?
half a minute ago via TweetDeck
That's not good. I wish the judge had not ruled that Mangum
could not be found guilty of the abuse charges if not found guilty
of the arson charge. I don't see why he made that ruling.

This is a circus. Mangum's going to walk.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
They are looking for ways not to find her Guilty of the Arson charge.


Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I think we all knew that at the beginning of this charade, Mike.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kerri P.
Member Avatar

MikeZPU
Dec 16 2010, 04:13 PM
This is a circus. Mangum's going to walk.
I agree these people can't understand the easiest instructions so they seem to be letting her walk. They're just looking for any loop hole they can.
Edited by Kerri P., Dec 16 2010, 04:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Mason
Dec 16 2010, 04:14 PM
.
They are looking for ways not to find her Guilty of the Arson charge.


.

When our friend told me that multiple members of Crystal's Fan club sat in the front row and mugged during testimony and shook their heads in exaggerated fashion - I knew that was a red flag.
The Jury sees all that, no doubt that's why it was done. I have no idea why it was allowed.

My friend, a courtroom veteran, said he's never seen that allowed in a courtroom.

They smiled Big and interacted between themselves (in exaggerated fashion) when the Cops were testifying like it was BS or unbelievable. And they shook their Heads YES or No when the Judge offered his choices on objections and talked it out in the courtroom.

.
.
Edited by Mason, Dec 16 2010, 04:23 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

If RDC had been on trial in Durham, the jurors would have skipped lunch and had a verdict in less than 20 minutes, no questions asked. This is an utter sham.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeKell
Member Avatar
Still a Newbie
I think this is the Cline tactic. Overcharge with 1st degree arson so you can "show you are tough" all the while knowing a conviction on that charge would be hard because of the 5 elements. I wonder if the Cline office phone shows any calls made to the defense lawyers phone . . .
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Kerri P.
Dec 16 2010, 04:10 PM
The new question: If they find not guilty on arson, may they find guilty for three abuse/neglect charges?
half a minute ago via TweetDeck
If I remember correctly the judge at the beginning of the trial indicated that if the jury found NG on the 1st degree arson then he would toss out the verdict regarding the 3 children charges regardless. They will only come into play if the jury declares guilty for arson. The defense made a motion for this to be included in the instruction but the judge denied because he had already put in the record what he would do.

I beleive some on the jury are concerned because there is an automatic 3 to 7 year sentence that the judge is required to give of found guilt on the 1st degree arson. The defense mentioned this in their final argument and the ADA objected. Judge overruled. DId not matter, it was already said. I also think that the jury is caught up with the fact the none of the children were physically hurt by the fire. The judge needs to clarify that injuries dont matter. It was the fire itself that mattered.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kerri P.
Member Avatar

There is sharp disagreement on what the jury should be told about the three abuse/neglect charges if the arson verdict or not guilty.
less than 20 seconds ago via TweetDeck
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
All that Debris on the floor burns nice.

The children weren't hurt (physically) this time. Even though we are supposed to believe they fought with a grown man.

Her kids fought with a grown man and she told the Cops to leave when they showed up. Yeah, sure.

.
Online 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