Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010
Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,588 Views)
chatham
Member Avatar

Sometimes I miss what people are saying. Sometimes I just dont understand what the meaning is behind some of the comments.

I don't quite understand what people want out this jury. Most of them were white people and the verdict ended up being a hung jury 9-3 in favor for not guilty. How is that the fault of a corrupt system or influence from a judge or people in the audience? Most of the whites voted not guilty. Are we saying the entire durham jury pool is corrupt or influenced by junk?

I was in the courtroom for a long day and another 1/2 day. I never saw the court cops go up to anyone (except me) to ask them to be quiet while court was in session. The times others are talking about could have happened before my time observing or it could have been during breaks when the court cop would go over to someone and say you need to not talk while the court is in session. Nothing in the first or second row, where I sat, was disruptive. But then again, I may be more tolerant than some others in the court. In never saw the ADA, defense jury or judge bothered by any chatter from the citizens in the courtroom.

What I did see was a defense who had no defense. And I did see a confident ADA who tried to convince guilt to an overcharged woman. Yes, I know its crystal. The prosecution had a slam dunk case. But somewhere along the line this ADA failed to convince even me that someone should be sent to jail for 3 to 7 years for a crime that came out of anger with violence on both sides.

Crystal was guilty of the charges the jury found her guilty of. But was she guilty of 1st degree arson? By the letter of the law, I am convinced yes. Then why did the ADA not convince me that she was guilty. I guess because he thought the letter of the law was convincing enough. It obviously wasn't enough. In just about any jury determination, emotion plays some part in the decision. The defense presented emotion to the jury that took hold. It was a crime of passion, not a crime of arson. Shoot, even some murder cases get off because its a crime of passion, right?

So, I don't blame the jury for coming to the conclusion they did. In fact one juror did not even take notes or attempt to take notes during any part of the trial. She, IMO had already made up her mind. Her notebook was empty. She never held it in her hands or lap. We dont know who the 3 were that stuck to their guilty vote. Wouldn't it be funny if it was 2 or 3 blacks on the jury? But we dont know, we only assume. I decided to attend to see if crystal could get a fair trial. In my opinion, she did. Not everyone will agree with me. Sure she had supporters in the court. How many defendants don't.

Personally, I just don't care what the judge says after the case has ended. This judge was fair and during my time in the courtroom I saw more decisions in favor of the prosecution that the defense.

Now realizing that this is crystal, the famed personality of the Duke LAX case, do I wish the outcome would have been different? Sure I do. She should have been sent to jail for a long time. She should get some mental health help, that should require a long time to straighten her out. But since the court decided, and by the court I mean the ADA and defense, that the LAX case or past discretions will not be brought into the present case, then crystals history is mute in judging this case.

I guess I just do not see justice as being a revenge for something that happened in the past, in coming to my decision that this trial was fair. It is no defendants fault that our justice system has been bastardize in such a way that technical issues negate the truth of guilt or innocence. Our judicial system has become filled with so many excuses to delay, modify and even eliminate the truth from being judged by a jury. That IMO is the unjust delay with the civil suits presented by the LAX players and their families. A justice system that can not work anymore.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Chatham, your point is well taken. More importantly,you were there.

If you say that there was no improper eye contact, or posturing toward the jury from Crystal's supporters...then, I believe you.

However, that does not negate the fact that this Judge, upon hearing that Magnum was indeed convicted on the child abuse charge...handed her children right back to her.

It does not negate the fact that the woman who IS the Prosecutor now...was Nifongs second chair and never made one word of protest as that "rogue prosecutor" made a mockery of justice. Cline as his successor carries the stench of her silence into every case where there are "racial" overtones. Is it unfair to wonder if the overcharging was deliberate? Maybe such suspicions would not arise if we had seen that office claim that putting Elmo on trial was..ahh...just clearing old warrants...and no wrong answer line ups were proper procedure, etc.

Nifong was shifty and underhanded.

Cline was silent.

The Judge called Mangum "a good Mother." I'd like to understand the definition. Does a woman trolling motels at night, stripping in bars, vibrating before strangers, LYING for over a year about rape...provide the basis for healthy child development in Durham? Does a Mother with a cum laude degree that makes no attempt to do honest work to support her children provide the basis for laudable "mothering" in Durham? Does a woman who has physical confrontations replete with "street language and threats to another person's life...who indulges her rage by setting fires...is this the current role model du jour for Durham children?

Yet today, a Durham judge has verified to Mangum's children that the behavior and lifestyle within which they are forced to live...is Durham's definition of a "good Mother."

Astonishing.

Edited by Joan Foster, Dec 18 2010, 03:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
Chatham,

To be fair, you sat in the back, at least the one day.

The disruptors were up front in the first row allowable for the public.

based on a laptop report from court and descriptions of the people there, correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't agree with you - but that's fine.

What a Judge states on the record during a Trial is important and reveals his/her mindset. The Judge's comments were made during the trial too - just another phase of the trial.



Edited by Mason, Dec 18 2010, 03:32 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

I believe the children would have a better life if they were raised by about anyone else, but I do not know how the charges she was convicted of could have been used to take them away from her in the verdict in a criminal court.

There would have to be actions in a civil court, before or after the criminal trial, to change the custody of the children.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
I can tell you what's going to happen, one of those boys, in a couple years, is going to beat the shit out of Crystal Mangum, something bad.

And I hope a Judge or Durham Cop lets him walk - saying he was just FED UP.



.
Edited by Mason, Dec 18 2010, 03:39 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Joan Foster
Dec 18 2010, 03:15 PM
Chatham, your point is well taken. More importantly,you were there.

If you say that there was no improper eye contact, or posturing toward the jury from Crystal's supporters...then, I believe you.

However, that does not negate the fact that this Judge, upon hearing that Magnum was indeed convicted on the child abuse charge...handed her children right back to her.

It does not negate the fact that the woman who IS the Prosecutor now...was Nifongs second chair and never made one word of protest as that "rogue prosecutor" made a mockery of justice. Cline as his successor carries the stench of her silence into every case where there are "racial" overtones. Is it unfair to wonder if the overcharging was deliberate? Maybe such suspicions would not arise if we had seen that office claim that putting Elmo on trial was..ahh...just clearing old warrants...and no wrong answer line ups were proper procedure, etc.

Nifong was shifty and underhanded.

Cline was silent.

The Judge called Mangum "a good Mother." I'd like to understand the definition. Does a woman trolling motels at night, stripping in bars, vibrating before strangers, LYING for over a year about rape...provide the basis for healthy child development in Durham? Does a Mother with a cum laude degree that makes no attempt to do honest work to support her children provide the basis for laudable "mothering" in Durham? Does a woman who has physical confrontations replete with "street language and threats to another person's life...who indulges her rage by setting fires...is this the current role model du jour for Durham children?

Yet today, a Durham judge has verified to Mangum's children that the behavior and lifestyle within which they are forced to live...is Durham's definition of a "good Mother."

Astonishing.

Joan, great post and well reasoned.

Chatham, this is not about revenge. It is simply calling out what we have witnessed as Durham justice, be it the courthouse crowd including prosecutors and/or much of the community since the spring of 2006. The records of LS that are archived will show with absolute clarity that in order to continue to malign the names of Reade, Colin and Dave, the community in some way MUST make Crystal into a credible and upstanding citizen, mother, student, etc. The community was more than willing to embrace the Black Panthers, rogue cops (which ironically enough most probably do more harm in the black community than anywhere else), a lying prosecutor, a complicit University, a local media unwilling to print the truth about Crystal's real life - not the fairytale printed at the N&O, the falling away from civil rights protocol by the NAACP and a general suspension of disbelief by the academic community at both Duke and NCCU.

When the world turns upside down, it's logical to try to get it rightside up again. I think that's what most of us have aspired to and why we have been here so long. I suppose it is our silent fear that perhaps Durham is not the only place in America where innocents can be carted off to jail on the lie of a prostitute and a whim of a rogue judge. The trial of Tanya Craft speaks to all of this. Middle America seems to be the next bastion of judicial corruption.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

Chatham make some good points.

IMHO

Crystal was found quilty of 5 of the six charges and spent some time in jail cooling her heels. Her reputation is shot to everyone but the crazed.

Justice for the 2006 Duke Lacrosse Team will come from the lawsuits and the revelations that will come from it.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
The truth is you can make some good money predicting what is going to happen there, with her, by betting that blacks will get behind Crystal lock, stock, and barrel.

Again, politically incorrect, but true.

I'm saying you predict things, and it happens - repeatedly - and some are surprised when it happens again.

The Jury Foreperson was black and she was out there talking about charges that weren't even in front of this jury.

If anyone wants to argue there's not a different standard there for behavior, why don't we have media asking NCCU about the illegal behavior of one of their students? Wasn't the Duke Administration responsible for scouring their student population of anyone that steps outside (or is accused of) of a standard of behavior? We were told Duke had a responsibility to Durham. Does NCCU have a responsibility to Durham?

.

Edited by Mason, Dec 18 2010, 04:10 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Some of the reports given by others who were in the courtroom would indicate that this group of supporters were making a lot of eye contact with the jury, shaking their heads no when they disagreed with a witness and rolling their eyes. This looks like jury intimidation to me. It appears from the reports that Judge Jones runs a very loose ship.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

And I did see a confident ADA who tried to convince guilt to an overcharged woman.

Chatham, I know there was a lot of discussion about the charge, but how do you explain "overcharged". She set fire to a pile of clothes in a bathtub, closed the bathroom door and walked away from the fire leaving her children in the house. This ignorant jury had to have the law explained to them multiple time regarding malicious intent. If what Crystal did was not maliciously intended to destroy Milton's clothing after she had already flattened his tires and thrown his vacuum cleaner outside in addition to perhaps intending to burn his entire apartment, I don't know what constitutes malicious. This jury was crawling through a knot hole backwards to spring Crystal. Were they intimidated by people in the courtroom? I believe they were.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Truth Detector
Dec 18 2010, 04:28 PM
And I did see a confident ADA who tried to convince guilt to an overcharged woman.

Chatham, I know there was a lot of discussion about the charge, but how do you explain "overcharged". She set fire to a pile of clothes in a bathtub, closed the bathroom door and walked away from the fire leaving her children in the house. This ignorant jury had to have the law explained to them multiple time regarding malicious intent. If what Crystal did was not maliciously intended to destroy Milton's clothing after she had already flattened his tires and thrown his vacuum cleaner outside in addition to perhaps intending to burn his entire apartment, I don't know what constitutes malicious. This jury was crawling through a knot hole backwards to spring Crystal. Were they intimidated by people in the courtroom? I believe they were.
TD,

The "in addition to perhaps intending to burn his entire apartment" would fall under the element of intent, which is not really what the question related to (if I am understanding you correctly).

The last question was more like the jury asking if when Crystal "maliciously intended to destroy Milton's clothing", she should have known it would also burn the structure.

If Mason was correct when stating that there were 3 large loads of clothes in the tub burning, then I agree that she should have been concerned about the house burning also - guilty.

A small problem may be that all her other actions were only to damage her soon-to-be exlover's property, so maybe the jury felt she was in such an emotionally controlled state of mind that she, or others in the state of mind, might not be in a position where they should have realized what could happen.






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Mason
Dec 18 2010, 03:28 PM
.
Chatham,

To be fair, you sat in the back, at least the one day.

The disruptors were up front in the first row allowable for the public.

based on a laptop report from court and descriptions of the people there, correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't agree with you - but that's fine.

What a Judge states on the record during a Trial is important and reveals his/her mindset. The Judge's comments were made during the trial too - just another phase of the trial.



Mason to be fair, I was sitting in the first row on my second all day attendance and the second row on the 1st 1/2 day I was there. The farthest back I ever got was when I was chatting with the N&O reporter during the jury forman vote. I sat in the same row as Jackie wagstaff, et al on the day I was there all day. In fact, I even said hello to wagstaff and the blog guy Matherly(?).

I was not in court when the verdict came down and all the other shenanigans occurred. But that was after the prosecutions and defense presentations was over. In all honesty I never saw personally never saw any winks or nods from the jury. But then again I was not looking.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

kbp
Dec 18 2010, 04:46 PM
Truth Detector
Dec 18 2010, 04:28 PM
And I did see a confident ADA who tried to convince guilt to an overcharged woman.

Chatham, I know there was a lot of discussion about the charge, but how do you explain "overcharged". She set fire to a pile of clothes in a bathtub, closed the bathroom door and walked away from the fire leaving her children in the house. This ignorant jury had to have the law explained to them multiple time regarding malicious intent. If what Crystal did was not maliciously intended to destroy Milton's clothing after she had already flattened his tires and thrown his vacuum cleaner outside in addition to perhaps intending to burn his entire apartment, I don't know what constitutes malicious. This jury was crawling through a knot hole backwards to spring Crystal. Were they intimidated by people in the courtroom? I believe they were.
TD,

The "in addition to perhaps intending to burn his entire apartment" would fall under the element of intent, which is not really what the question related to (if I am understanding you correctly).

The last question was more like the jury asking if when Crystal "maliciously intended to destroy Milton's clothing", she should have known it would also burn the structure.

If Mason was correct when stating that there were 3 large loads of clothes in the tub burning, then I agree that she should have been concerned about the house burning also - guilty.

A small problem may be that all her other actions were only to damage her soon-to-be exlover's property, so maybe the jury felt she was in such an emotionally controlled state of mind that she, or others in the state of mind, might not be in a position where they should have realized what could happen.






And when she was that same "emotionally controlled" state of mind...guess she didn't realize that a big heavy squad car hitting a human being square on...might ...hurt him? And that whole 13 months that she sustained her lengthiest "emotionally controlled" state of mind where she thought she was raped while levitating....she again did not realize that sending three innocent kids to jail for a rape that never happened...might not be nice.

How does our"magna cum laude" graduate from NCCU not possess the critical thinking to extrapolate what consequences might follow from her actions? What does it say about that degree that this woman is barely functional...or so her supporters would have you believe? She is too delusional to ever be accountable...but at NCCU...she is one cracker-jack top notch academic! Using Tony's mad dog analogy...somehow Crazy Fido gets best-in-show.

Go figure.

Just when and how does Mangum ever be held responsible for the things she does in these emotional states? And if she can't be responsible...why is she let loose to be a danger to her children and the general public?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nyesq83
Member Avatar

Chatham, I see your points and much of what you write is valid and understandable.

I have related no comments regarding the jury.

1. Almost everyone, including the black female jury forewoman, who is in the Durham justice system (the "order" part of "law & order"), seems to have held the impression/conclusion/verdict from the start that Mangum was overcharged. Maybe she was, on the arson charge.

Therefore, the stage was set for yesterday's result from the start of when Crystal was arrested and brought downtown.

No one has addressed it directly, but the fact she sat in jail at all and lost custody of her kids for a while (for what was perceived by many as an over-charge) also directed the verdict and the judge's sentencing.

2. As to my comment about Durham mooning the system, I specifically refer to:

(a) the DA's office (for all of the reasons and discussions regarding Cline and her associates);

(b) the Judge (for making a - sorry Jackie Wagstaff - ridiculous! statement about Mangum being a "good mother" - even after all of the evidence presented (and guilty charges) regarding her destruction of another's property and the living conditions she subjects her children to on a daily basis; and

(c) the FoCkers (Friends of Crystal), who mugged and whispered and shucked and jived in support of Crystal.

How do you think these people will behave and perform in any trial scenario in a case against their interests?

Is anyone surprised there is no motion forward on the RCD and UP (unindicted players) cases????
Edited by nyesq83, Dec 18 2010, 05:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Listen up folks, I am not saying the the system is perfect. But from my observations and under the conditions the trial was set up under, the trial appeared fair to me. I am not saying it was right. I am saying it was fair under the rules established for this trial.

The jury looked at me also. I stood out in that room with my orange hoodie on. No one could miss me and I myself was nodding my head in agreement or disgust over some of what was going on. And I know the judge saw me (and implied, the others) because I could see him looking at me. I also saw many in the jury avoid looking at me when they were leaving for lunch, walking right past me, because I was looking at them. I also sat next to 2 of the jurors at lunch one day. We exchanged small talk. I am glad there were more than just me in the court who could also relate what they saw. Maybe they can see everything, I sure can't.
Everyone has a different view of the case. But I was there and I am just trying to give my impressions to the group. Take them or leave them, but dont criticize what my impressions were. We all dont hear the same meanings in our words.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply