| CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,587 Views) | |
| Mason | Dec 18 2010, 05:21 PM Post #1216 |
|
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. . |
![]() |
|
| chatham | Dec 18 2010, 05:24 PM Post #1217 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 18 2010, 05:30 PM Post #1218 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Yes, on your side of the courtroom, there would be a clear shot of the jury. We appreciate your reports! , |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Dec 18 2010, 05:41 PM Post #1219 |
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 18 2010, 05:44 PM Post #1220 |
|
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? . |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 18 2010, 05:45 PM Post #1221 |
|
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? |
|
|
| kbp | Dec 18 2010, 05:56 PM Post #1222 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 18 2010, 06:06 PM Post #1223 |
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| sdsgo | Dec 18 2010, 06:06 PM Post #1224 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 18 2010, 06:14 PM Post #1225 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. And someone at that address owns a Pit Bull. . |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 18 2010, 06:18 PM Post #1226 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. 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.
|
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 18 2010, 06:32 PM Post #1227 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. I ask again, how did this woman become the Jury Foreperson? Not on accomplishments, evidently. . Edited by Mason, Dec 18 2010, 06:32 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Dec 18 2010, 06:38 PM Post #1228 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 18 2010, 07:19 PM Post #1229 |
|
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? |
|
|
| Mason | Dec 18 2010, 07:20 PM Post #1230 |
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| 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