| CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,586 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Dec 18 2010, 07:24 PM Post #1231 |
|
Deleted User
|
You're right, the charges are not worth the paper they are written on. |
|
|
| Mason | Dec 18 2010, 07:25 PM Post #1232 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. I have to ask this of you Defenders - If you were accused of the same.. Would you have been able to get a Free Three week Trial defense? If you/yours couldn't afford Bond, would a Stranger in Durham have put up your $100,000 bond? Remember, you have a Prior Criminal record. Would there be a Friends Of You group that dutifully attended court, started a blog, lobbied the news media and on and on? Simple Questions. , |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 18 2010, 07:25 PM Post #1233 |
|
Deleted User
|
It's still interesting to me that no one in the black community seems to have any interest in Milton's stake in this case. It's all about poor Crystal. |
|
|
| Mason | Dec 18 2010, 07:27 PM Post #1234 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. He's an Uncle Milton, because the Bigger Issue is to support the attack on the Rich, White hated ones. . |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 18 2010, 07:29 PM Post #1235 |
|
Deleted User
|
Is there any way to calculate the cost of this trial? Is there a state agency that would indicate what kind of budget would have covered this sham. |
|
|
| Quasimodo | Dec 18 2010, 08:00 PM Post #1236 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| chatham | Dec 18 2010, 08:05 PM Post #1237 |
|
Based on the law, I do not think that crystal was overcharged. Obviously the ADA did not either, since that was his case. But the defense kept pressing the overcharge point. I am saying the jury believed that. The defense brought up the attempted murder charge, that was dropped on the jury and some of the other "mistakes" that the police made. Might be thinking wrong here but i do not know of any jury that knows or understands the law the way the DA does or the judge. I believe that is why there was so much confusion regarding the 5th element of the arson charge. With the final 9-3 NG vote, I believe the jury went on emotion rather than law. I am not saying that is right or wrong. IMO, it happened. As the defense said, the cops just made too many mistakes. If the jury believed that, would that not add doubt to some? The juries verdict, (and a lot of verdicts for that matter) may have had nothing to do with the way crystal felt that night but with what the cops did and what the magistrate did (charged for attempted murder) and how persuasive the defense was compared to the prosecutor. The defense made a point of crystal being hit or beaten by milton. The defense brought up the setting of the fire. Then the defense said that crustal had no 5th amendment right to tell anyone since she was already under arrest. The judge agreed with that. As I said before, the prosecutor was very persuasive, but just not convincing enough for a guilty verdict. The defense won the battle on the felony charge. The verdict of the jury does not mean the trial was not fair, it just means the jury got the law wrong. You know we all talk abut how bad the durham cops were in the LAX case. They were. But now we say we believe every aspect of what the cops did that night. The cops in durham are either corrupt or they are not corrupt. If I was a resident in Durham I would have to think long and hard about which cop is telling the truth and which cop is telling a story just because of the cop history. Based on those observations, any defense could make a plea for an emotional verdict rather than a law based verdict. Does that make the trial unfair? No!!!! Does that make Durham corrupt? I will leave that to your own judgement. But you cannot say the cops are honest one time and corrupt a different time based on the case you wish to win. Unfortunately for the people in Durham they have had so much cop abuse for so long that it is easy to not believe them unless one wants to. But that does not make justice corrupt. It makes the jury unable to tell the difference. Crystal was guilty based on fact of law. My opinion only. Was the system used to determine guilty or not guilty corrupt? no. Did the jury have doubt? Based on a 9-3 vote, yes. MOO |
![]() |
|
| DMom | Dec 18 2010, 08:11 PM Post #1238 |
|
(original post deleted) Wonderland indeed ..... This creature is, once again, on the dole of all legitimate tax-paying citizens in both Durham city, and Durham county. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and who will continue to take care of her 3 children? (and, sadly, who will continue to take care/provide her with means of drug needs of CGM?) ---------------------------------- disgusting Edited by DMom, Dec 18 2010, 09:11 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| chatham | Dec 18 2010, 08:25 PM Post #1239 |
|
You ask some interesting questions. There are no easy out in the open answers. It may be as simple as too many people being part of the law in durham being in her phone book. Might just be that someone tapped into that rich source of information. And now those folks are calling for favors to keep them off the list of her associates. Time to pay the piper? |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 18 2010, 08:27 PM Post #1240 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. You might have missed it DMom, or am I misunderstanding your post, but she has the kids and the Judge thinks she's a Good Mother. . |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Dec 18 2010, 08:32 PM Post #1241 |
|
Do they still have case-management in Durham? If so, does that mean that Tracey Cline had the opportunity to chose which judge would preside over Crystal's case? (Don't know.) If so (and maybe she didn't), why did she pick Jones (for a case the handling of which would have been especially sensitive for her office?) I did not (admittedly from a distance) notice anything Judge Jones did wrong, save for at the end, when he permitted the "good mother" Crystal to retain custody of her children. Does that rule out any action by Durham social services? If so, was that a pre-considered decision on the part of the judge, that he would permit her to retain her children even if she was convicted on the child abuse charges? Were there any ex-parte conversations between the judge and anyone outside the legal system about Crystal's fate? ---------------------- IF Tracey Cline (representing the Durham establishment) was considerably wary of putting Crystal anywhere near a witness stand; and if, faced with the problem that Crystal was going to face a trial, she needed a way out of it... then overcharging might be one way to insure that she got out of the most serious charges; Recall the Leon Brown case (a confessed rapist walked free); the Erick Daniels case (identification by eyebrows--maybe to protect the real perpetrator?); the Tim Malloy case (evidence tapes erased by the prosecution--redux in the Duke lacrosse case); and the Duke case itself--a fraud from the very start, built upon witness intimidation and inciting public animus against the defendants. Could the DA's office plan to help Crystal out and keep her from ever having to testify? If so, there isn't much to blame the jury for if they found Crystal was overcharged. She was found guilty on charges of child abuse--there was no way out of finding her guilty on that charge--but reducing it to misdemeanors meant it was all just a paper shuffle (especially if the judge was going to short-circuit any inquiry into her children's conditions). Ergo, was the entire trial was simply a sham, put on by the DA's office to get Crystal (and the Durham establishment) out of another jam, with the result already predictable? (JMOO. for discussion purposes only) Edited by Quasimodo, Dec 18 2010, 08:34 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Walt-in-Durham | Dec 18 2010, 08:40 PM Post #1242 |
|
I am not Chatham, but, I'd like to talk about Crystal being overcharged. The state could have charged her with Arson in violation of NGCS § 14-66 Burning of personal property, a Class H felony. That certainly fit the facts of the case and carried a much lesser penalty than First Degree Arson, a Class D Felony. The state also elected not to have the judge instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of Arson in violation of NCGS § 14-66 which they could have. The state rolled the dice on getting the big felony and lost. Had they pursued the § 14-66 charge, I think Crystal would be a convicted felon today. Walt-in-Durham |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Dec 18 2010, 08:41 PM Post #1243 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 18 2010, 08:42 PM Post #1244 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Deja Vu. There are those nagging questions regarding if the Judge knew information beyond what was presented to him in court by each side. It's really hard to grasp him listening to that trial and making the determination that she is a Good Mother. Like other trials where Crystal was central, it seems, possibly, the Judge could have been briefed in a unknown manner regarding Crystal. . Edited by Mason, Dec 18 2010, 08:43 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| chatham | Dec 18 2010, 08:42 PM Post #1245 |
|
ROFL.... is the DA smart enough to think all what you say up? |
![]() |
|
| 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