Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010
Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,586 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

You're right, the charges are not worth the paper they are written on.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
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.



,

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
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.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Truth Detector
Dec 18 2010, 07:25 PM
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.
.
He's an Uncle Milton, because the Bigger Issue is to support the attack on the Rich, White hated ones.


.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
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.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://law.rightpundits.com/?p=2640

Crystal Mangum: LaCrosse Rape Accuser Convicted Of Child Abuse
By JoAnne Thomas

Durham, North Carolina

(snip)

All of the charges she was convicted of yesterday, December 17, 2010, are misdemeanors. A mistrial was declared by Superior Court Judge Abraham Jones on the felony arson charge because the jury deadlocked.

So, after putting her children and others in danger, once again Crystal Mangum receives a slight slap on the hand. She was sentenced to time served—-a mere 88 days.

A 12-member jury found Mangum guilty of child abuse, injury to personal property and resisting a public officer, all misdemeanors. Under state sentencing guidelines, 90 days was the maximum sentence Jones could have ordered, but he decided she’d paid enough for her crimes.

Crystal Mangum was also awarded custody of her three children. She lost custody last August.

Durham County Prosecutor Mark McCullough is unsure about whether or not he will attempt to retry Crystal Mangum on the felony arson charge.

Since the jury was deadlocked 9-3 in her favor, I doubt that he will refile and personally think it’s a shame.

We all know how rapidly fires spread. She gave no thought to her children while allegedly starting a fire in her bathtub. Her anger at the live-in boyfriend, Milton Walker, was far stronger than her love for her children. Personally, I believe there’s something wrong with someone that does not put a child’s welfare ahead of their own.

This woman, Crystal Gayle (Gail) Mangum has managed to outmaneuver the judicial system since 2006.

In a real rush to judgment, Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans became victims of Mangum’s when she was able to convince Mike Nifong and others that she had been raped.

The N.C. Attorney General eventually found the three young men factually innocent, but not before lives had been destroyed, reputations ruined, and Mangum’s bank account increased.

Her supporters gave her a ‘free ride’ through college, and helped her on the road to a brand new life. She was never charged for lying or defamation of character. She was able to go about her life with her head held high, and when things became a little tight, she wrote a book, hoping to capitalize on her ’story.’

Then she acquired another live-in boyfriend and couldn’t get along with him, either. She even accused him of setting the fire—in the presence of the police and her innocent children.

When police attempted to take Mangum into custody, she “unlawfully and willfully” resisted arrest, court records show. She also allegedly provided them with a fake name, Marella, and age.

That tells me she knew exactly what she was doing—-yet she was sentenced to time served, less than three months, and was able to regain custody of her children. Why?

What has to happen before Crystal G. Mangum is finally held accountable for her abhorrent behavior?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Truth Detector
Dec 18 2010, 05:45 PM
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?
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DMom



(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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Mason
Dec 18 2010, 07:25 PM
.


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.



,

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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
DMom
Dec 18 2010, 08:11 PM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and who will take care of her children?
.
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.

.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Walt-in-Durham

Truth Detector
Dec 18 2010, 05:45 PM
Please explain or direct me back to pages for more clarification. Chatham what do you mean by "overcharged"?

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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://www.newspusher.com/EN/post/1292705041-2/nc-mistrial-in-crystal-mangum-arson-case.html

Durham, UNITED STATES (USA), Sat 18 Dec 2010, 20:02 GMT

THE ACCUSER IN THE DUKE LACROSSE RAPE CASE, CRYSTAL MANGUM, NOW A FREE WOMAN IN NORTH CAROLINA

(snip)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Quasimodo
Dec 18 2010, 08:32 PM
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)

ROFL.... is the DA smart enough to think all what you say up?
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.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply