Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010
Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,587 Views)
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
I think we would have a DOJ investigation right now if one side, only black jurors were questioned extensively (and eliminated) based on suspected bias by the Lawyers.

Remember, neither side queried blacks as to their racial prejudices - and whether their friends included white people.

It all sounds fine, until you put it in a light where it's only being done to blacks. It was done to whites here - and the Trial ended up going with one White Male juror.

It was won during Jury selection - and then you have a Black Judge, the ADA has a black judge, a Black boss (DA) - he wasn't going to bring black scour black jurors for racist behaviors. Wasn't going to happen.

.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

chatham
Dec 18 2010, 05:06 PM
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.
My apology to mason. On the 1st day I was in court I was in the 3rd row. I could still see all of the jury except the juror who eventually became foreperson. The next day I was in the 1st row.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
Yes, on your side of the courtroom, there would be a clear shot of the jury.

We appreciate your reports!

,
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Joan Foster
Dec 18 2010, 05:08 PM
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?
Addressing what jurors MIGHT have thought when they were guessing how Crystal would "extrapolate what consequences might follow from her actions" when setting the clothes on fire, they may have felt a person could anticipate the tub would have controlled the fire. Just a wild guess here!

If the verdict count was accurate, I believe a few of the majority voting NG factored in something like that ...unless Durham is about 8 or 9/12ths corrupt!

ADD: Re-worded last paragraph.
Edited by kbp, Dec 18 2010, 05:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
Jurors, in some cases, were selected for submissiveness.

Shauna rose to be the Jury foreperson. Was that based on her accomplishments - or her aggressiveness and attitude?


.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Please explain or direct me back to pages for more clarification. Chatham what do you mean by "overcharged"?

If there are two arson (both felony) charges that could have been leveled at Crystal, is it logical to say that one charge is for the unlawful burning of an occupied dwelling and the other is not. Clearly, Crystal set fire to an occupied dwelling. I will go back to our earlier discussions and hope to figure this out. Like Joan says, unless you are declared totally incompetent, Crystal or anyone would have had to know the potential for disasterous results of her action. If she knew, she should be in jail, if she didn't she should be in an institution.

IN THE MEANTIME: Who restores Milton's personal property and pays for damages to the apartment, car, etc. Is there any restitution ordered by the Court on Milton's behalf. He seems to be the forgotten man here. Where is his cheering section - friends of milton?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

I doubt if the company that insured the structure will go after Crystal. Waste of money there.

I would think restitution to Milton should have been part of this verdict. Not sure if the criminal court can do that in NC. It's often a part of some probation agreement. Maybe Milton has to file a lawsuit in civil court there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
Shauna Mitchell (Jury Foreperson), it seems, lives with her Parents, in their house, and drives an Old Cadillac valued at $1,900 dollars.

They usually state when quoting a Jury Foremen what they do for a living, none of the news organizations did, which makes me suspicious.

She owns no property (real estate).



,
Edited by Mason, Dec 18 2010, 06:09 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sdsgo

chatham,

Thank you.

Also, I say thanks to Judge Jones for reversing his earlier decision to link the three counts of “contributing to delinquency of a minor” to the 1st degree arson charge.

The twelve Dayton jurors selected by a rigorous voir dire did their duty and reached a fair and impartial verdict. Crystal received a fair trial despite massive pre-trial publicity and widespread public condemnation for her prior bad acts. Collectively, the jury addressed all Crystal’s crimes, even though they split on a single judgment call.

The 1st degree arson charge could have gone either way, and that’s exactly why we have juries in the first place. There was no question that she set fire to a dwelling inhabited by another, causing more than superficial damage. I’m equally certain she just wanted to burn her boyfriend’s clothes. Did these facts add up to 1st degree arson? Three jurors said, “Yes,” and nine jurors said, “No.”

Should we stop there or retry her on the single charge? I think the answer to that question can be found in the unanimous verdicts on the other charges. The jury said Crystal was wrong to damage Milton’s car. They said she was wrong to be uncooperative and struggle with the police. But most important, the twelve men and women said in no uncertain terms that Crystal Magnum was not acting as a responsible parent when she set fire to Milton’s clothes in the bathroom of a house occupied by two cops and her three children. Would a retrial say any more? No, not really.

Her trial left us with this unforgettable, although legally stricken, statement, “She left a fire burning not three feet from where her three children were huddled together on a mattress, and when I asked her, ‘Where’s the fire?,’ she said nothing.” One can interpret the statement in many ways. But one thing is certain: Crystal was so wrapped up in her own self-righteous anger that she was incapable of caring for the three children God entrusted to her. That must change, and only Crystal can make it happen.

I hope she embraces the spirit of this Christmas to rebuild her life and her family. If not, it’s going to be a difficult future for all of them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Mason
Dec 18 2010, 06:06 PM
.
Shauna Mitchell (Jury Foreperson), it seems, lives with her Parents, in their house, and drives an Old Cadillac valued at $1,900 dollars.

They usually state when quoting a Jury Foremen what they do for a living, none of the news organizations did, which makes me suspicious.

She owns no property (real estate).



,
.
And someone at that address owns a Pit Bull.



.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Mason
Dec 18 2010, 06:14 PM
Mason
Dec 18 2010, 06:06 PM
.
Shauna Mitchell (Jury Foreperson), it seems, lives with her Parents, in their house, and drives an Old Cadillac valued at $1,900 dollars.

They usually state when quoting a Jury Foremen what they do for a living, none of the news organizations did, which makes me suspicious.

She owns no property (real estate).



,
.
And someone at that address owns a Pit Bull.



.
.

And her Brother, that evidently lives with her, IS A FELON.

The Pit Bull registered at her Parent's address (and her address) is registered to a FELON.


Edited by Mason, Dec 18 2010, 06:22 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Mason
Dec 18 2010, 06:18 PM
Mason
Dec 18 2010, 06:14 PM
Mason
Dec 18 2010, 06:06 PM
.
Shauna Mitchell (Jury Foreperson), it seems, lives with her Parents, in their house, and drives an Old Cadillac valued at $1,900 dollars.

They usually state when quoting a Jury Foremen what they do for a living, none of the news organizations did, which makes me suspicious.

She owns no property (real estate).



,
.
And someone at that address owns a Pit Bull.



.
.

And her Brother, that evidently lives with her, IS A FELON.

The Pit Bull registered at her Parent's address (and her address) is registered to a FELON.


.

I ask again, how did this woman become the Jury Foreperson?


Not on accomplishments, evidently.

.
Edited by Mason, Dec 18 2010, 06:32 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

sdsgo
Dec 18 2010, 06:06 PM
chatham,

Thank you.

Also, I say thanks to Judge Jones for reversing his earlier decision to link the three counts of “contributing to delinquency of a minor” to the 1st degree arson charge.

snip
Good post.

I'm a little lost as to what act or acts of delinquency any minor committed. I never read of them helping her light the clothes on fire, so that really had me wondering.

Maybe NC law is different than what we have in my state.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Crystal was so wrapped up in her own self-righteous anger that she was incapable of caring for the three children God entrusted to her. That must change, and only Crystal can make it happen

I beg to differ. She is and has been for a long time an incompetent parent. With Crystal's history of drug abuse, her life of prostitution and false accusation, it is not likely that a light will go on in Crystal's mind and she will suddenly become a good parent. Unfortunately, the State must get involved if those kids have half a chance of a decent future.

It seems the judicial system and the citizens of Durham have adopted the same mind set as Crystal. If she deems a false accusation to be "her truth" then Durham decides it is "their truth" as well. Setting fires in a bathtub to someone else's clothes is no big deal in Durham. The poor "smuck" who lost his home and belongings in this ordeal can just suck it up I suppose because this is Crystal. How many more crimes will she commit until they stop looking the other way?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
You guys seem lost on the fact that those three charges did nothing.

Why not reverse them - he simply ignored them. There were meaningless. If I was Pro-Crystal and didn't want to be investigated by the NC Office of the Courts, I would have reversed them too - since I controlled sentencing.

.
Edited by Mason, Dec 18 2010, 07:21 PM.
Online 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.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply