| CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,596 Views) | |
| jmoo | Dec 17 2010, 08:48 PM Post #1081 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/17/868180/crystal-mangum-verdict-may-be.html Judge declares mistrial on Mangum's felony arson charge By Jesse James DeConto - Staff writer <snip> Over the past 10 months, Peterson and others have complained about Mangum’s treatment, which included an attempted murder charge, $1 million bond, the 88 days in jail and a no-contact order with her children. “There did seem to be a lot of severe charges for what the evidence showed,” said jury forewoman Shauna Mitchell. The trial began with Jones warning Jackie Wagstaff, a controversial former city councilwoman and school board member who supports Mangum, not to interfere with the proceedings; she had exchanged hellos with a potential juror. And it ended with Wagstaff jailed for 10 days for contempt of court Friday after she said, “This is ridiculous,” as Jones was sending the jury back to deliberate. Mangum’s attorney, Mani Dexter, had repeatedly asked Jones to declare a mistrial because the jury was split on the arson charge. |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 17 2010, 08:54 PM Post #1082 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. I'm appreciative of the thoughtful analysis (Thanks Walt, sceptical, and numerous others). The Herald-Sun person did a good job tweeting to us also. I think Abb is warming up to him. And for God's sake, someone get CKS some heat. Eta: Thanks to those that braved the court proceedings! Edited by Mason, Dec 17 2010, 08:55 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| jmoo | Dec 17 2010, 08:54 PM Post #1083 |
|
Well, evidently I was wrong.... From the N&O The Durham County District Attorney’s office may or may not agree. Nine of 12 jurors thought Mangum was not guilty of first-degree arson, resulting in a hung jury and a mistrial. Prosecutor Mark McCullough said he’ll decide next month whether to retry her on that charge. In the meantime, Jones rewarded Mangum custody of her three children, which another judge had taken in August. http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/17/868180/crystal-mangum-verdict-may-be.html |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 17 2010, 08:59 PM Post #1084 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. That's a new one on me. I thought the DSS investigation was a totally different track and that was handled in family court. She gets convicted of contributing to the Delinquency but gets her kids right back tonight? If this report is true, I have to question whether that Judge did see all that mugging and play acting and that Baliff wasn't in on it. Why have DSS case handlers and evaluators if a Judge that's never seen her kids or been to the residence is going to rule on it without their input? . Edited by Mason, Dec 17 2010, 09:00 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| ~J~ is in Wonderland | Dec 17 2010, 09:00 PM Post #1085 |
|
~J~ is in Wonderland
|
HUH? Is this correct? Plus she got her kids back?? |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 17 2010, 09:05 PM Post #1086 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. That Jury foreperson looked with disdain on one half of the courtroom crowd, even when they held a door for her or said Good Morning (remember the Jurors use the same entrances and metal detectors, etc.), but was real friendly with 3-4 of the Friends of Mangum. The non-black ADA couldn't very well question prospective jurors aggressively in racial terms in front of the black judge; however, the Public Defender was unencumbered in a Durham court by going after white prospective jurors. . |
![]() |
|
| Kerri P. | Dec 17 2010, 09:05 PM Post #1087 |
|
I fear for those kids being back in that nut jobs care. Durham is truely in Wonderland.
Edited by Kerri P., Dec 17 2010, 09:06 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| LaDukie | Dec 17 2010, 09:05 PM Post #1088 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Dec 17 2010, 09:05 PM Post #1089 |
|
I have 'zone heating', so if one furnace goes out, the next helps to cover the loss. I'm not sure if it is a design for the layout or size of my house or some economical reason, but it has been handy in the past. |
![]() |
|
| Rusty Dog | Dec 17 2010, 09:08 PM Post #1090 |
|
Well, do we trust the AP and the N&O? Too bad the twitterer stopped before the end. Has he put anything up on the Herald Sun? . I thought the vote was heading for conviction, but I'm not sure that was said exactly. But if the vote was 7-5, 8-4, and then 9-3 for acquittal, I'm surprised the defense attorney didn't want to hold out for one more day. She was very anxious for a mistrial. I will repeat, do we trust the AP and the N&O to get the details right? |
![]() |
|
| cks | Dec 17 2010, 09:09 PM Post #1091 |
|
Third tech is the charm - thinks the problem is the filter (not the right size - need to have a special custom size) and that the blower is encrusted. They will come out on Tuesday and take blower apart (in the daylight) and clean it thoroughly. However, for now, heat is working again and emp is set a little higher so that house is finally warm. I am always chilled as it is so having the temp down to 62 was akin to being at the North Pole. Temp is now at 70 so I am slowly thawing. As my children (all who live in the south) told me this evening, there is a reason why they gravitated to the warmer climes - even when the furnace fails, it is still livable. WHat did warm my heart is that Ms. Wagstaff is behind bars. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Dec 17 2010, 09:13 PM Post #1092 |
|
My guess would have been that one or more of the three 'NG' votes felt that a fire in a tub would be somewhat contained. ![]() OOPS! Wrong tub, but the idea is similar ...bottom and sides contained. The loadS of clothes changes that theory in my mind, but maybe the jurors felt she wouldn't have known it would end up like it did ...or maybe those jurors were raised and educated to be fans for victims! (you know I mention the tub theory because it is that little piece in the back of my mind that keeps telling me that I am not certain she knew it would burn the house down ...with her children in it!) ************************** ************************** KIDS If the child protective services had not gotten involved when the charges first came about, for the LE is supposed to call them when children at a crime scene are given to some person other than the parent being arrested, they will most likely never get involved. They are guitly of not watching out for the children, and therfore, guilty of taking them later makes it obvious to the public they did not do their job earlier. D***ed if you do, D***ed if you don't situation, and it's not good PR now! |
![]() |
|
| cks | Dec 17 2010, 09:13 PM Post #1093 |
|
okay - so now I am totally confused. If the vote was 9-3 in Mangum's favor, why would her attorney want a mistrial instead of her client declared not guilty? Second, how in God's name could Crystal who was convicted on the other charges get her kids back? |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 17 2010, 09:13 PM Post #1094 |
|
Parts unknown
|
“It’s a victory,” Peterson said of the judge and jury’s decisions. Just read the narratives of Crystal's days (and nights) given by Crystal's Drivers in the Duke Lacrosse case. She is incapable of watching those kids. She was always dumping them on someone else. She's home for 4-5 hours a day, and then she's back at the Park getting high and then off to the Streets and Hotel rooms to 6:00 am and it starts all over again. That why I said that it is the enablers that keep Crystal fat in her Street lifestyle. Edited by Mason, Dec 17 2010, 09:24 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 17 2010, 09:17 PM Post #1095 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Very strange, indeed. It's goes 8-4 then 9-3, you'd think the Harvard lawyer would want them to continue, but she's trying to shut down the show as fast as Possible.
|
![]() |
|
| 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