Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010
Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,625 Views)
Joan Foster

sceptical
Dec 16 2010, 05:42 PM
Speculation-- is the jury interested in finding Crystal guilty of neglect towards her children because that would trigger an investigation by the state children's services?

What do we want from this trial? I don't think the goal is retribution. In my mind, proper care for the three kids is most important, followed by psychiatric and drug abuse treatment for Crystal. A long prison term would just cost the taxpayers money, in addition to that which was spent before she met bail.
I agree, Sceptical.

WE have to think of those children. No one else seems to be.

But aside from the children...I'm thinking now...whether Mangum walks or not...should be of little consequence from our perspective.

Justice is in the SPECTACLE.

Simply by the fact that Mangum is involved in ANOTHER sordid Durham spectacle is a terrific blow against the Hoax perpetrators.

If their depiction of Mangum were true, what life might one expect a magna cum laude graduate of Durham's historic Black college to be leading now? Remember...she was only dancing to pay for college. Her prime interest was advancing herself, her education, and raising her children. She is terribly smart, hard working, resourceful.

That's the official spin as it still exists, is it not?

So, now she has her degree,,,with high honors...some minor local celebrity status and certainly many well connected supporters.

But...wait. What has happened here to Sister Survivor...our brilliant, moral young "lady" of high standing?

The genius magna cum laude grad is being apparently supported by a man she says is mentally ill. She is living with her children in an apartment barely furnished...and seemingly the mentally ill friend provides most of the food and child care.

Does the Magna Cum Laude grad...work? Has anyone mentioned...work? All that brilliance...all those "A's"...all the local connections! One wonders why she isn't employed at NCCU?

Oh. She is undergoing..."spinal taps."

And oops...it is now a matter of record that the shy young Mother used foul and abusive language, and admittedly became violent.... in front of her children. She set a fire while her children were in the apartment and told no one...showed no concern for her little ones. Our shy Sister Survivor!

Can that be?

So here's my point:

Now, whether she walks on this charge or not...Hoax Enablers must realize that the current image of Mangum is much more in keeping with the image if the violent Lap-dancer who tried to run down a cop...the motel-trolling sex-worker "vibrating herself for strangers...the drunken spaced out Stripper that arrived at the Lacrosse party with every orifice chock full of male DNA.

Not the vision of Sister Survivor..that THEY created in their hatred and bigotry.

Crystal is killing ole Sister Survivor and with her, the credibility of the metanarrative. She is humiliating Durham and the Duke radicals...every SINGLE time she explodes from her seamy existence into the sunshine of a now unrelenting audience. She is the burden to bear of the 88, and Brodhead, and the NCNAACP, and Durhams racist and progressive radicals for the rest of her life.

They put the Holy Grail of the Metanarrative on her shoulders. And they did it in the most glorious firecracker media fashion.

Think about it.

The Team THEY excoriated has gone on to beautiful , honorable lives. Sister Survivor is setting fires and hell-on-wheels with a Hoover...in front of her own little children.

She is OUR poster Girl...she proves their lies, their bigotry...their Frame.

As long as she is free, she will continue to vindicate the righteousness of everything we argued..and the ugliness of those liars who support her to this day.

If it were not for those children, we should be delighted to see her return to the street again tomorrow. We could pass around the popcorn and sit here and wait for the next disgusting chapter. We could think of Brodhead trembling as he hears whatever is to come next...the 88 stuttering and smacking their lips in frustration...Durhams radicals mortified and its Racists exposed AGAIN.

The Metanarrative trashed. Do it for us, Crystal!

Sister Survivor is OUR poster Girl, Hooligans. She validates everything WE ever said.

She reinforces the enormity of the Fraud. She demonstrates the difference between the decency of the kids and depravity of her Hoax.

We should want her out there on the street again ASAP...to keep proving how right we were!

How delicious.

What a feast of mockery of the Hoax enablers Mangum unfailingly provides. How stupid they look. How corrupt. How racist. How ignorant.

But... there are those children. We'll see tomorrow if there is any decency at all left in Durham. We'll see how they protect those kids.

Or not.








Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

the jurors wanted to know
"what constitutes a lawful arrest?"

Well, there was a lot more going on in court than one could include in a my report. What constitutes a lawful arrest came up a couple of times, including what instructions should be given to the jurors. First, it was questioned whether the cops had a right to go into the house or stay in the house when asked to leave and if the cops could arrest someone under those conditions without a valid warrant. This was the 4th, 5th and 6th amendment argument. I was not there the day this issue came up. The judge settled this issue but it must be in some of the minds of the jury and may be that is why they are asking.

The other issue was in the indictment itself. It was presented that both Thompson and Tyler were the arresting officers. However, one of the items of the indictment only listed Thompson as the arresting officer. This became an issue during the instruction debate as the defense stood up and claimed that they did not prepare their case based on two arresting officers if the indictment only claimed one arresting officer.

The judge realized what the defense was doing. There is not much he can do if everything the cops and DA's office presented was not perfect in the indictment. IMO, as good as the ADA presented this case, there was more slop with it than I would have expected.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

Crystal was specifically charged with three counts of "contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile." She was not charged with neglect (although she is certainly guilty of that).

I am unsure how this relates to the arson charges-- any legal thoughts on this?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Lets not forget Joan that Crystal was enrolled in a masters degree program at the same time the fire started.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

sceptical
Dec 16 2010, 06:59 PM
Crystal was specifically charged with three counts of "contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile." She was not charged with neglect (although she is certainly guilty of that).

I am unsure how this relates to the arson charges-- any legal thoughts on this?
Arson was the crime. The kids were in the house.

ETA: we probably need a copy of exactly what the indictment said to be sure what all the charges were.
Edited by chatham, Dec 16 2010, 07:04 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Joan Foster
Dec 16 2010, 06:55 PM
sceptical
Dec 16 2010, 05:42 PM
Speculation-- is the jury interested in finding Crystal guilty of neglect towards her children because that would trigger an investigation by the state children's services?

What do we want from this trial? I don't think the goal is retribution. In my mind, proper care for the three kids is most important, followed by psychiatric and drug abuse treatment for Crystal. A long prison term would just cost the taxpayers money, in addition to that which was spent before she met bail.
I agree, Sceptical.

WE have to think of those children. No one else seems to be.

But aside from the children...I'm thinking now...whether Mangum walks or not...should be of little consequence from our perspective.

Justice is in the SPECTACLE.

Simply by the fact that Mangum is involved in ANOTHER sordid Durham spectacle is a terrific blow against the Hoax perpetrators.

If their depiction of Mangum were true, what life might one expect a magna cum laude graduate of Durham's historic Black college to be leading now? Remember...she was only dancing to pay for college. Her prime interest was advancing herself, her education, and raising her children. She is terribly smart, hard working, resourceful.

That's the official spin as it still exists, is it not?

So, now she has her degree,,,with high honors...some minor local celebrity status and certainly many well connected supporters.

But...wait. What has happened here to Sister Survivor...our brilliant, moral young "lady" of high standing?

The genius magna cum laude grad is being apparently supported by a man she says is mentally ill. She is living with her children in an apartment barely furnished...and seemingly the mentally ill friend provides most of the food and child care.

Does the Magna Cum Laude grad...work? Has anyone mentioned...work? All that brilliance...all those "A's"...all the local connections! One wonders why she isn't employed at NCCU?

Oh. She is undergoing..."spinal taps."

And oops...it is now a matter of record that the shy young Mother used foul and abusive language, and admittedly became violent.... in front of her children. She set a fire while her children were in the apartment and told no one...showed no concern for her little ones. Our shy Sister Survivor!

Can that be?

So here's my point:

Now, whether she walks on this charge or not...Hoax Enablers must realize that the current image of Mangum is much more in keeping with the image if the violent Lap-dancer who tried to run down a cop...the motel-trolling sex-worker "vibrating herself for strangers...the drunken spaced out Stripper that arrived at the Lacrosse party with every orifice chock full of male DNA.

Not the vision of Sister Survivor..that THEY created in their hatred and bigotry.

Crystal is killing ole Sister Survivor and with her, the credibility of the metanarrative. She is humiliating Durham and the Duke radicals...every SINGLE time she explodes from her seamy existence into the sunshine of a now unrelenting audience. She is the burden to bear of the 88, and Brodhead, and the NCNAACP, and Durhams racist and progressive radicals for the rest of her life.

They put the Holy Grail of the Metanarrative on her shoulders. And they did it in the most glorious firecracker media fashion.

Think about it.

The Team THEY excoriated has gone on to beautiful , honorable lives. Sister Survivor is setting fires and hell-on-wheels with a Hoover...in front of her own little children.

She is OUR poster Girl...she proves their lies, their bigotry...their Frame.

As long as she is free, she will continue to vindicate the righteousness of everything we argued..and the ugliness of those liars who support her to this day.

If it were not for those children, we should be delighted to see her return to the street again tomorrow. We could pass around the popcorn and sit here and wait for the next disgusting chapter. We could think of Brodhead trembling as he hears whatever is to come next...the 88 stuttering and smacking their lips in frustration...Durhams radicals mortified and its Racists exposed AGAIN.

The Metanarrative trashed. Do it for us, Crystal!

Sister Survivor is OUR poster Girl, Hooligans. She validates everything WE ever said.

She reinforces the enormity of the Fraud. She demonstrates the difference between the decency of the kids and depravity of her Hoax.

We should want her out there on the street again ASAP...to keep proving how right we were!

How delicious.

What a feast of mockery of the Hoax enablers Mangum unfailingly provides. How stupid they look. How corrupt. How racist. How ignorant.

But... there are those children. We'll see tomorrow if there is any decency at all left in Durham. We'll see how they protect those kids.

Or not.








Joan, as usual, well thought out and great points for rational people, but the people on this jury represent Durham and we must assume that they are not rational.

Durham simply does not care what the world view of Crystal might be. They don't think that far ahead of their nose. Do you honestly think that this will ever matter to Judge Beatty?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Crystal will be enrolled in some local Durham program from here to eternity. She may someday have more credits accrued than the Angry Studies faculty have papers published.

Nevertheless, the point of education is to do productive work....lead a decent life...provide for yourself and your own.

Crystal can't hack it. She CANNOT be their prototype Sister Survivor. She can't carry the Metanarrative to glory for them.

And they cannot cover what she is... with education credits.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Truth, my point is that IMO Crystal pretty much "works" for us now.

Let them set her out on the street again. She'll bring them more mortification...and us...more ammunition to expose them.

She can't help herself and they can't control her.

She validates our position over and over with her inability to live decently.

Edited to add...we said Durham was biased and corrupt. We said Mangum was an unstable liar. We said RCD could never get a fair trial in that city.

We said that. But tomorrow, that seamy cast of characters may very well prove it.

And Crystal...who works for us now...is a great asset to us...as long as she keeps providing US such opportunities for...ummm..."teaching moments."
Edited by Joan Foster, Dec 16 2010, 07:24 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Quasimodo
Dec 16 2010, 06:53 PM
Quote:
 
http://www.durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/

[Update, Thurs., 10.17am: The Mangum case has gone to the jury. And here's a remarkable update from the twitter feed of H-S reporter Matthew Milliken, who covered the trial yesterday: "Jackie Wagstaff [a race-baiting former school board member, and outspoken Nifong supporter] overheard during recess: 'They are not understanding the nature of the black household.' Not sure if she's referring to [the racially-mixed] jury." Only in Durham could we get the insinuation that a mother burning clothes in a room near to where her children were sleeping is part of the "nature of the black household."]
.

Worth Repeating.


.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
Don't forget the ADA's power to bring charges again - or bring different charges. I refuse to believe they could find 12 people in the state that would unanimously find her Not Guilty.

Sans that unanimity, she can be charged again, and/or the charges can be changed.

Here's how Neglect enters into it.

Any person who is at least 16 years old who knowingly or willfully causes, encourages, or aids any juvenile within the jurisdiction of the court to be in a place or condition, or to commit an act whereby the juvenile could be adjudicated delinquent, undisciplined, abused, or neglected as defined by G.S. 7B‑101 and G.S. 7B‑1501 shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.


There are lots of ways the charges can be reshuffled.

I don't think Misdemeanors mean much to Crystal.

.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Joan,

You do so well in describing the situation here!

Unfortunately, I doubt if any that supported Crystal, then or now, will lose sleep over any outcome involving her, nor admit the harm their support has helped to create for others.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Thanks for the "neglect" information. It is quite different than the neglect I am aware of, which is used by the state to 'protect' children.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
kbp
Dec 16 2010, 07:32 PM
Thanks for the "neglect" information. It is quite different than the neglect I am aware of, which is used by the state to 'protect' children.
.

Just to Add:

That description was for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sdsgo

sdsgo
Dec 6 2010, 06:40 PM

So let’s explore the individual counts, beginning with the First Degree Arson charge.

Quote:
 

§ 14-58. Punishment for arson.

There shall be two degrees of arson as defined at the common law. If the dwelling burned was occupied at the time of the burning, the offense is arson in the first degree and is punishable as a Class D felony. If the dwelling burned was unoccupied at the time of the burning, the offense is arson in the second degree and is punishable as a Class G felony.

§ 14-66. Burning of personal property.

If any person shall wantonly and willfully set fire to or burn, or cause to be burned, or aid, counsel or procure the burning of, any goods, wares, merchandise or other chattels or personal property of any kind, whether or not the same shall at the time be insured by any person or corporation against loss or damage by fire, with intent to injure or prejudice the insurer, the creditor or the person owning the property, or any other person, whether the property is that of such person or another, he shall be punished as a Class H felon.


If Crystal set the fire, was she trying to destroy her boyfriend’s clothes or burn down his house?

The jurors say she wanted to burn his clothes; not his house. The prosecutor overreached and did not give them a comfortable alternative.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

sdsgo
Dec 16 2010, 07:39 PM
sdsgo
Dec 6 2010, 06:40 PM

So let’s explore the individual counts, beginning with the First Degree Arson charge.

Quote:
 

§ 14-58. Punishment for arson.

There shall be two degrees of arson as defined at the common law. If the dwelling burned was occupied at the time of the burning, the offense is arson in the first degree and is punishable as a Class D felony. If the dwelling burned was unoccupied at the time of the burning, the offense is arson in the second degree and is punishable as a Class G felony.

§ 14-66. Burning of personal property.

If any person shall wantonly and willfully set fire to or burn, or cause to be burned, or aid, counsel or procure the burning of, any goods, wares, merchandise or other chattels or personal property of any kind, whether or not the same shall at the time be insured by any person or corporation against loss or damage by fire, with intent to injure or prejudice the insurer, the creditor or the person owning the property, or any other person, whether the property is that of such person or another, he shall be punished as a Class H felon.


If Crystal set the fire, was she trying to destroy her boyfriend’s clothes or burn down his house?

The jurors say she wanted to burn his clothes; not his house. The prosecutor overreached and did not give them a comfortable alternative.





That's why I am not real sure there will be a guilty verdict.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply