Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010
Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,584 Views)
kbp

Quasimodo
Dec 18 2010, 08:48 PM
NOTE THE DIFFERENCES IN THE HEADLINES:

http://www.chitownlacrosse.com/?p=10331


Duke lacrosse accuser convicted of child abuse Washington Post

Duke Lacrosse Accuser Guilty of Child Abuse MyFox Washington DC

Jury finds former Duke lacrosse accuser guilty in domestic dispute WRAL.com

Crystal Mangum freed after jury deadlocks
News & Observer



Good observation!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Mason
Dec 18 2010, 09:32 PM
Posted Image
.
I think Judge Jones is a good example of why Sexually Transmitted Diseases are running rampant in Durham.


.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concerned
Member Avatar

Mason, you are killing us!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Truth Detector
Dec 18 2010, 09:05 PM
Great point, Mike. Isn't unbelievable that an officer of the Court can lie and hide evidence and spend one day for contempt and Jackie Big Mouth gets 10 days and $200 in fines.
Yes, quoting "Jackie Big Mouth": "This is ridiculous." :)

Jackie should have quickly checked to see if Judge Stephens
was available to testify for her as a character witness.

Although I don't know if Judge Stephens could have reproduced
that heartwarming tear he shed for Nifong.

You can't make this stuff up.

Edited by MikeZPU, Dec 18 2010, 09:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Concerned
Dec 18 2010, 09:42 PM
Mason, you are killing us!
.
Don't we all know Men that are otherwise Intelligent that lose their head around women?

.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
They just announced over there on the "Friends of Crystal" website that she's gonna head up a new chapter of MAWP in Durham, she'll be the President of the Non-Profit.










Mothers Against White People
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jmoo

Quasimodo
Dec 18 2010, 01:49 PM
Quote:
 

http://democracydurham.blogspot.com/
Saturday, December 18, 2010

At Last A Verdict & Other Drama!

(snip)

You may have also heard that Jackie Wagstaff, a good friend and colleague of mine, is in the Durham County Jail for "Contempt".

I think we all know who, for the most part reads Democracy Durham. The few of you who have open minds and visit this blog to learn something and/or engage in reasonable conversation on issues about which reasonable people might disagree I welcome you and thank you for visiting and for your comments. However, I think it is safe to say that the majority of you check out this blog so you can feed your salacious appetites for all things Crystal and as an outlet for unreasoned and bigoted commentary on the important issues this case raises. These same readers are, if I may generalize, likely to also detest Jackie Wagstaff. Maybe I'm wrong about that but I don't think so.

I can almost hear the clucking, tsk tsking, and derisive laughter of those readers described above. Not one to disappoint my audience I hereby serve you up more grist for your ridicule mill:

Jackie was whispering, apparently not softly enough, in court as she, myself, several others, and everybody in the courtroom including reporters, other lawyers, and the many observers that came and went had been doing during the entire trial.

Jackie was about to be let off with a warning by Judge Jones when Deputy Scotty Hodges intervened to tell the judge that we (and by we I mean specifically those of us who were there to support Crystal) had been disruptive during the entire trial. It is true that he had to shush us a few times (maybe more than a few) but he had also sushed nearly everyone in the audience at one point or another. We "supporters" had been talking for several days about how Hodges was singling us out for sushing and other minor infractions that he didn't seem to notice that everyone was engaging in (phones ringing or buzzing too loud is a common problem). In fact Jackie herself earlier that day had spoken to Sheriff Worth Hill and made arrangements to come see the Sheriff to discuss Deputy Hodges' behavior toward our "group".

Everyone in the audience had an opinion about how the trial was going. It was clear from his body language and his facial expression and some muttered comments that Deputy Hodges was not a fan of Crystal's and certainly would prefer that she be found guilty. Besides that Hodges knows all of us from previous trials and from our portrayals in the media. To say that Hodges is an ultra-conservative would be an understatement.

At the very moment that Jackie was about to be given a warning and released (we knew this by the comments of the judge as he was addressing the issue and framing what he was about to say) at that moment Hodges, seeing an opportunity to throw his substantial weight around interjected his prejudices into the process.

I call them his "prejudices" because he abused his position as an officer of the court to paint our little group in the worst terms possible. He exaggerated how disruptive we were and never mentioned that our behavior was well in line with what was going on in general in the audience. Had we been as disruptive as he claimed why were we not ejected or brought before the judge earlier?

(snip)

I'm on my way down to bring Jackie some money and offer support. Later I will be reflecting on many aspects of the trial. Before I go, however, I want to commend Chanel 11 ABC for their short and surprisingly unbiased coverage of yesterday's events. Also, I would like to thank Jessie James DeConto of the News & Observer for his use of the phrase "....Cystal Mangum the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse Rape case.." I have been encouraging the media not to describe Crystal as the "false accuser" or her accusations as having been false in anyway because it is inaccurate and untrue. The accusations were never proven to be false because the case never went to trial.

Steven Matherly




Steve Matherly --

I know that you read this blog just as I know it was you who reported that I was taking pictures in court (when, in fact, my blog post specifically noted that I was not). But...according to your rules... I can't call you a false accuser because my case will never be heard in court. But I KNOW & YOU KNOW that, based on the evidence, YOU ARE A FALSE ACCUSER .... just as I know and CRYSTAL knows (and Nifong knew) that she IS A FALSE ACCUSER.

As far as Jackie is concerned, I'll admit, after having been falsely accused, reported to the court and questioned by the baliff, I did feel a bit of vindication when she was "called out" for her in-court (in the presence of the jury!) antics.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Locomotive Breath

Locomotive Breath
Dec 5 2010, 10:53 AM
There will be at least one crypto-supporter juror who will ignore all evidence and vote "not guilty". The jury will hang and she'll walk. Count on it.
Uh huh.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
jmoo
Dec 18 2010, 11:22 PM
Quasimodo
Dec 18 2010, 01:49 PM
Quote:
 

http://democracydurham.blogspot.com/
Saturday, December 18, 2010

At Last A Verdict & Other Drama!

(snip)

You may have also heard that Jackie Wagstaff, a good friend and colleague of mine, is in the Durham County Jail for "Contempt".

I think we all know who, for the most part reads Democracy Durham. The few of you who have open minds and visit this blog to learn something and/or engage in reasonable conversation on issues about which reasonable people might disagree I welcome you and thank you for visiting and for your comments. However, I think it is safe to say that the majority of you check out this blog so you can feed your salacious appetites for all things Crystal and as an outlet for unreasoned and bigoted commentary on the important issues this case raises. These same readers are, if I may generalize, likely to also detest Jackie Wagstaff. Maybe I'm wrong about that but I don't think so.

I can almost hear the clucking, tsk tsking, and derisive laughter of those readers described above. Not one to disappoint my audience I hereby serve you up more grist for your ridicule mill:

Jackie was whispering, apparently not softly enough, in court as she, myself, several others, and everybody in the courtroom including reporters, other lawyers, and the many observers that came and went had been doing during the entire trial.

Jackie was about to be let off with a warning by Judge Jones when Deputy Scotty Hodges intervened to tell the judge that we (and by we I mean specifically those of us who were there to support Crystal) had been disruptive during the entire trial. It is true that he had to shush us a few times (maybe more than a few) but he had also sushed nearly everyone in the audience at one point or another. We "supporters" had been talking for several days about how Hodges was singling us out for sushing and other minor infractions that he didn't seem to notice that everyone was engaging in (phones ringing or buzzing too loud is a common problem). In fact Jackie herself earlier that day had spoken to Sheriff Worth Hill and made arrangements to come see the Sheriff to discuss Deputy Hodges' behavior toward our "group".

Everyone in the audience had an opinion about how the trial was going. It was clear from his body language and his facial expression and some muttered comments that Deputy Hodges was not a fan of Crystal's and certainly would prefer that she be found guilty. Besides that Hodges knows all of us from previous trials and from our portrayals in the media. To say that Hodges is an ultra-conservative would be an understatement.

At the very moment that Jackie was about to be given a warning and released (we knew this by the comments of the judge as he was addressing the issue and framing what he was about to say) at that moment Hodges, seeing an opportunity to throw his substantial weight around interjected his prejudices into the process.

I call them his "prejudices" because he abused his position as an officer of the court to paint our little group in the worst terms possible. He exaggerated how disruptive we were and never mentioned that our behavior was well in line with what was going on in general in the audience. Had we been as disruptive as he claimed why were we not ejected or brought before the judge earlier?

(snip)

I'm on my way down to bring Jackie some money and offer support. Later I will be reflecting on many aspects of the trial. Before I go, however, I want to commend Chanel 11 ABC for their short and surprisingly unbiased coverage of yesterday's events. Also, I would like to thank Jessie James DeConto of the News & Observer for his use of the phrase "....Cystal Mangum the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse Rape case.." I have been encouraging the media not to describe Crystal as the "false accuser" or her accusations as having been false in anyway because it is inaccurate and untrue. The accusations were never proven to be false because the case never went to trial.

Steven Matherly




Steve Matherly --

I know that you read this blog just as I know it was you who reported that I was taking pictures in court (when, in fact, my blog post specifically noted that I was not). But...according to your rules... I can't call you a false accuser because my case will never be heard in court. But I KNOW & YOU KNOW that, based on the evidence, YOU ARE A FALSE ACCUSER .... just as I know and CRYSTAL knows (and Nifong knew) that she IS A FALSE ACCUSER.

As far as Jackie is concerned, I'll admit, after having been falsely accused, reported to the court and questioned by the baliff, I did feel a bit of vindication when she was "called out" for her in-court (in the presence of the jury!) antics.



.
JMOO plays by the Rules and always has.

Multiple News Outlets reported that the Friends of Crystal were being disruptive during the Trial - previous to the day when Wagstaff was nabbed.

To to the disruptive group that reads here - you can't afford Crystal. Ask her family and her ex-friends.


.
Edited by Mason, Dec 19 2010, 12:17 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Dear DD ( "democracy durham") I got the same question of the judge that you do. "IF our little group was so disruptive why weren't we ejected or brought before the judge earlier? "

Why? Do you know why you weren't? Might you have been in a non-Durham courtroom, where such antics are not only seen as juvenile but downright disrespectful of the judicial process?

Just guessing... of course none of us know what lurks in the minds of such austre judge-persons... but just guessing that perhaps he knew which way the winds of "justice" were blowing... and that little slap on the wrist that one of your Little Group got for contempt of court was just a red herring ( you know... distraction... fishy diversion) so he would look "objective". I'm just wondering of course, because none of us knows what really is in the mind of a Durham Judge. You can only know them by their fruit. So far... hmmmmm... well, the subject of fruit will have to wait.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Mason
Dec 18 2010, 09:41 PM
Mason
Dec 18 2010, 09:32 PM
Posted Image
.
I think Judge Jones is a good example of why Sexually Transmitted Diseases are running rampant in Durham.


.
Something tells me Crystal paid in kind for that generous verdict on Friday.

Guess there's one more name in Crystal's cellphone from the Courthouse crowd.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
sdsgo

kbp
Dec 18 2010, 06:38 PM
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.
kbp,

NC uses the contributing to delinquency of a minor statute to implement portions of the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA). The law holds parents accountable for any act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm to the child. (See below)

Quote:
 

Child abuse and neglect are defined by Federal and State laws. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) provides minimum standards that States must incorporate in their statutory definitions of child abuse and neglect. The CAPTA definition of "child abuse and neglect," at a minimum, refers to:

"Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm. [1]

<snip>

Physical Abuse

Physical abuse is generally defined as "any nonaccidental physical injury to the child" and can include striking, kicking, burning, or biting the child, or any action that results in a physical impairment of the child. In approximately 38 States and American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the definition of abuse also includes acts or circumstances that threaten the child with harm or create a substantial risk of harm to the child's health or welfare. [5]


-------
1. 42 U.S.C.A. § 5106g(2) (2003)

5. The word approximately is used to stress the fact that the States frequently amend their laws. This information is current through July 2009. The States are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.


http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.cfm

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sdsgo

Mason
Dec 18 2010, 08:46 PM
Walt-in-Durham
Dec 18 2010, 08:40 PM
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
.
It's not too late.

:)
The above discussion raises a serious question regarding Mason’s post. When Judge Jones reversed his earlier decision to link the three counts of “contributing to delinquency of a minor” to the 1st degree arson charge, did he link the charges to Crystal’s action of setting Milton’s clothes on fire in the bathtub?

According to Milliken, “Jones sided with McCullough, declining to tie the abuse and neglect convictions to the arson. This reversed instructions Jones had given before lunch, when he said a not guilty finding for arson meant jurors needn't consider the child endangerment counts.” Previously, ADA McCullough had argued, Mangum's having set a fire is legally distinct from her possibly having committing arson.

But the act of setting clothes on fire was the legal basis for charging Crystal with ”an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm" under NCGS § 14-316.1. As such, Jones' ruling implicated NGCS § 14-66 Burning of personal property, and thus jeopardy attached.

Quote:
 

As a general proposition, the Double Jeopardy Clause applies only to criminal cases and consists of three separate constitutional protections. First, it protects against a second criminal prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. Second, it protects against a subsequent prosecution for the same offense after conviction. Finally, it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.

The simplicity of these general statements masks the real confusion resulting from their application. As Judge Monroe McKay observed, terms like “acquittal,” “multiple punishments,” and “same offense” prompt “the most vehement disagreement among the Justices” (McKay, 1983, pp. 1–2). The Court has struggled to give meaning to these terms.

Difficulties arise in determining when a new prosecution is for the “same offense.” The issue is presented when the same criminal act or transaction violates two separate statutes. In Grady v. Corbin (1990), the Court explained that in such circumstances the critical inquiry should focus on the conduct the prosecution will attempt to prove in the second prosecution, not the evidence that it will use to prove that conduct. For example, if someone has an automobile accident and is convicted of driving while intoxicated, that person cannot then be prosecuted for criminally negligent homicide arising from the same accident if the state intends to use the drunk driving conviction to prove the homicide charge. On the other hand, the homicide prosecution will not be barred if the state uses other conduct (such as driving too fast) to prove the homicide charge.

http://www.answers.com/topic/double-jeopardy

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply