| CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,660 Views) | |
| jmoo | Dec 3 2010, 09:11 PM Post #121 |
|
rotflmao!! I don't think I've laughed that hard since someone posted a picture of Pinocchio Nifong while his Bar Hearing was in session. |
![]() |
|
| jmoo | Dec 3 2010, 10:00 PM Post #122 |
|
I don't think she'll accept a plea. Her "friends" won't let her do it! I suspect she will WANT to take the stand -- for the same reasons she wouldn't drop her her lies against CRD. A good attorney will advise STRONGLY against taking the stand BUT will her "friends" (all three of them) egg her on.... tell her this is her CHANCE, finally!, to show those DUKIES and everyone else ... show them something. With "friends" like that... |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Dec 4 2010, 12:11 AM Post #123 |
|
I was just recalling that when Linwood "interviewed" Mangum in December 2006, Mangum offered to take a polygraph. Linwood went back to Nifong and told him that she would take a polygraph. But, of course, there was no way Nifong was going to take her up on that offer. Yes, like everyone else, I fully believe that Mangum will absolutely want to take to the witness stand JUST like she offered to take that polygraph. She's a pathological liar -- she lies almost continuously. Her whole life is one continuous stream of lies. Edited by MikeZPU, Dec 4 2010, 12:40 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 4 2010, 09:07 AM Post #124 |
|
Was court held yesterday, or is there just a news blackout? |
![]() |
|
| Rusty Dog | Dec 4 2010, 09:16 AM Post #125 |
|
My guess is that they are still desperately seeking jurors. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 4 2010, 09:24 AM Post #126 |
|
The clown circus at the court house this past week is further proof that there is no way on God's green earth that Reade, Collin and David would not have been lynched had the case gone to trial in Durham. If a drug-addled whore and a handful of dingbats can tie a court session into knots, how would RCD and their lawyers been able to stand up against the newspapers, the tv stations, the DPD, Nifong, Brodhead and Duke U and the Power Structure? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 4 2010, 03:06 PM Post #127 |
|
Deleted User
|
It appears they aren't trying too hard to seat a jury. This case would be a no brainer in most jurisdictions. In Durham if you are a lying, thieving whore who has cost the city millions of dollars in legal fees, they get their collective asses in a wad trying to make certain your rights aren't violated. |
|
|
| cks | Dec 4 2010, 03:13 PM Post #128 |
|
Can someone bring me up to speed? Thanks. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Dec 4 2010, 03:24 PM Post #129 |
|
A poor working woman, Navy veteran, and mother of two was working her way through college by stripping when... (snip) Jury selection for Crystal's trial for arson and a few other related things began Thursday. More than a third of the potential jurors were excused; at least two jurors were chosen as of Thursday, but the local media, outdoing itself yet again, carried absolutely NO reports of what took place in the courtroom on Friday. (another reason why we need our own reporters in the courtroom...) Crystal may or may not testify on her own behalf; if so, the attorneys are agreed that they won't bring up the lacrosse case (heaven forfend there should ever be anyone in Durham embarrassed by testimony about THAT...) Crystal's friends (Victoria Peterson among them) showed up in court the first day but not thereafter, having been admonished by the judge to keep quiet during the proceedings. Crystal sported a large bruise on her forehead--source unknown (and apparently of no interest to the media, which was willing to report and comment on even the bank on which the lax players' bail was drawn, the cost and architecture of their homes, etc.) Edited by Quasimodo, Dec 4 2010, 03:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| cks | Dec 4 2010, 03:40 PM Post #130 |
|
Quasi: Thanks you for the synopsis......I suppose that one can say like death and taxes, the Durham system of non-justice in the case of one exotic dancer will always be with us. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 4 2010, 03:48 PM Post #131 |
|
http://democracydurham.blogspot.com/2010/12/despite-what-many-people-in-this-city.html Saturday, December 4, 2010 Crystal Mangum's Arson Trial Despite what many people in this city, state, and country seem to think Crystal Mangum is a human being, a child of god (for those of you who are religious) and a citizen of this country and, as such, is entitled to a fair trial. Also, Ms. Mangum has never been convicted (or for that matter even been charged) with any crime resulting from her accusations against the Duke Lacrosse players. NC Attorney General Roy Cooper cannot legally declare those young men “innocent” nor can he legally claim that Ms. Mangum’s accusations were/are “false”. The accused in the “Duke Lacrosse Case” were never tried in a court of law and therefore cannot be found innocent or, as the court would have put it, “not guilty”. The events of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case should not intrude on Ms. Mangum’s current legal difficulties but we all know that the mere mention of her name inflames passions in many people’s minds. Having said all that, it is abundantly clear that there is a lot of ill-will against Ms. Mangum for her role in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case. Nonetheless, in this case, the one in which Ms. Mangum is charged with First Degree Arson (among other things) Ms. Mangum is entitled to the presumption of innocence – no matter how many degrading, insulting, inflammatory, racist, and incorrect statements members of the public may hurl at her on blogs such as this, on television, or in the newspapers. I happen to think that Ms. Mangum is innocent of these charges. Therefore, as is my right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (that’s the one the guarantees our freedom of speech) I am, by writing this blog, exercising my right to speak out about this case. I invite the public to engage in (hopefully) civil discussion about this trial. I’ll tell you right now that I set the bar pretty low as to what I consider “civil”. I can usually take a lot of abuse on this and other unpopular topics. However, I do reserve the right to not publish, for any reason whatsoever, anything that might be sent in. Posted by Steven Matherly at 3:36 PM |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Dec 4 2010, 04:05 PM Post #132 |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment Mangum could be impeached as a witness in MANY different ways: Substitute "her" for "his" below, and similar gender substitutions: Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual who is testifying in a trial. There are several ways that a witness may properly be impeached and several other ways that, although effective, are prohibited except under special circumstances. Methods of impeachment A party may be impeached through introducing evidence of any of the following (remembered via the mnemonic BICCC): Bias--The witness is biased against one party or in favor of the other. The witness has a personal interest in the outcome of the case. A classic example is that a witness for the prosecution who is awaiting sentencingi more likely to be for prosecution in hopes of better treatment. The proper way to handle this is first to question the witness to see if he will admit to the bias. If no admission results, then the cross-examiner may bring in other witnesses to expose the bias. Inconsistent Statement--The witness has made two or more conflicting statements. By exposing his conflicting statements, you reduce his credibility. Character--The witness has a community-recognized reputation for dishonesty. Specific examples are inadmissible unless the witness admits them himself under cross-examination, but to present witnesses who can attest to the witness's bad character is helpful. This might seem tedious, especially when it is realized that a character witness against the principal witness may himself be impeached the same way, but normally witnesses are total unknowns to jurors, and people with reputations in their community for being total fabricators do show up in court from time to time. Coupled with character are prior criminal acts by the witness. This is handled in one of three ways: If the witness has committed any crime involving dishonesty (i.e. larceny-by-trick, embezzlement, fraud, etc.) then the prior conviction is admissible under every circumstance. If the witness is the criminal defendant, a felony conviction (that is, conviction of a crime that is punishable by more than one year in prison) is admissible if the judge determines that the probative value outweighs the potential for prejudice. If the witness is not the criminal defendant, a felony conviction is admissible unless the judge determines that its prejudical nature substantially outweighs its probativity. Stale felonies, that is, felonies where the witness was released at least ten years ago (or was found guilty ten years ago if no incarceration) are admissible only if the probative value substantially outweighs its prejudice. Competency--The witness was unable to sense what he claimed to have (such as he could not see from where he was) or that he lacked the requisite mental capacity. Older common law would exclude an incompetent witness from testifying. Modern rules, such as the Federal Rules of Evidence, allow the witness on the stand (in most cases) considering competence, but one of many factors that juries are to consider when determining credibility of the witness. Contradiction--The witness is induced to contradict his own testimony during the present proceeding. This differs from inconsistent statements, above. Inconsistent statements involve statements made out-of-court (hearsay) or in prior proceedings. Contradiction involves the witness saying two different things in the same testimony. Another form of impeachment by contradiction has a subtle effect on the order in which the attorneys present their evidence. When a defense attorney calls a witness who testifies about what happened, this gives the opposing attorney the opportunity to present evidence contradicting that witness. Had impeachment by contradiction not been allowed by the rules of evidence, the second attorney would have been barred from presenting the contradicting evidence because he already had his one (and only) chance to prove the facts of the case as he claims them to be. But since his opponent put on a witness, this "opens the door" to him to strengthen his case by going again with more proof of what happened: the only legal excuse for this rehash of his claim is that he is impeaching by contradiction his opponent's witness. Another use of impeachment by contradiction can be explained negatively: while an attorney cannot contradict an opponent's witness on a trivial ("collateral") fact like the color of the hat she testified she was wearing on the day she witnessed the accident, but on more important matters normally excluded by the rules of relevance, contradiction may be allowed. Thus, a witness might not normally be permitted to testify she is a safe driver, and the opponent cannot normally prove she is in general an unsafe driver but should the witness nonetheless happen to testify she is a safe driver (say because no objection was made to the question), her opponent can now contradict her by eliciting on cross-examination that she has been involved in several accidents. Had contradiction impeachment not be permitted, then the unsafe character of the witness would have been barred by the rules of evidence. This impeachment-by-contradiction evidence is admitted solely to impeach: it cannot be used to prove anything about the events being litigated but only to discredit the witness's credibility. The theory is that when a witness can be contradicted, it should be taken into account in determining the reliability of the witness. Hence, the jury is instructed by the judge "do not use [the impeachment evidence] as proof of any facts, but only to consider whether the witness in question should be believed." All experienced courtroom observers agree that jurors will have great difficulty understanding this distinction, known as "limited admissibility" or "admissibility for a limited purpose". Even more unlikely is the prospect that a juror who understands the instruction will be psychologically capable of obeying it. The only practical impact of this limited admissibility is that the evidence cannot be used to prop up a weak case that would otherwise be dismissed by the court for insufficient evidence because it was admitted only for the impeachment of a witness. Edited by MikeZPU, Dec 4 2010, 04:31 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Dec 4 2010, 04:38 PM Post #133 |
|
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2010/11/island-of-misfit-toys.html http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/11/28/830923/matherly-sees-brushes-with-law.html Matherly sees brushes with law as 'badge of honor' BY JESSE JAMES DECONTO - STAFF WRITER News and Observer 28 November 2010 DURHAM -- Like Victoria Peterson, another failed candidate for public office, Steven Matherly, sees his brushes with the law as a “badge of honor” for standing up for what he believes. Matherly was acquitted on a disorderly conduct charge after police dragged him out of a school board meeting in April 2005. He’d refused to stay in his seat in protest of time limits on citizen speakers, an act of civil disobedience he’d been publicly threatening for months. In June of that year, with the disorderly conduct charge still pending, Matherly accosted an opposing activist trying to collect signatures to change how school board candidates are elected. Republican activist Charlotte Woods contacted police, saying Matherly bumped her with his belly during an altercation in an east Durham shopping center, calling her a white racist bitch and telling her to go back to “the plantation in Hope Valley”, an historic south Durham country-club neighborhood. At the time, Matherly denied any physical contact and said he called her a “biddy” and told her to go back to the plantation. He said both were yelling and Woods should not have felt threatened. That summer, Matherly also began publishing The Durham Community News: Durham’s Hometown Paper, a short-lived project intended so “I would be sure that my point of view would be printed,” according to his editorial from September of that year. The paper included unsubstantiated rumors about public officials and defenses of Matherly and his allies’ controversial political activity. A Durham native who moved back after spending his 20s in Boston, Matherly has tried his hand at restauranteurship, videography, mental health-care, English education, used cars, the Latin-American import/export business and stay-at-home fatherhood. But his political activism is what puts him in the spotlight. Matherly has served on the City-County Planning Commission, spoken out against the Southpoint SuperTarget and presided over the progressive Durham People’s Alliance. Matherly did not return phone calls or e-mails seeking comment for this story. "I know that everyone is talking about getting along and being civil,” he said during his campaign for school board in 2004. “But the job description is not ‘play well with others.’ The job description is get something done. If that means sometimes butting heads with others, then so be it." Matherly ended up resigning as president of the People’s Alliance after members complained he was speaking out on issues under their banner without their approval, according to long-time member Milo Pyne. “We were in the habit of working with people who worked collaboratively and cooperatively and didn’t just go off and do things randomly and on their own,” said Pyne. “That was the pattern of behavior that we encountered with Steven, and people had a hard time with that.” Pyne said he respected Matherly’s impulse to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” but found that his choice of causes often lacked discernment, including on the Mangum case. “You have to pick your battles,” he said. jesse.deconto@newsobserver.com or 919-932-8760 Edited by MikeZPU, Dec 4 2010, 05:00 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 5 2010, 06:14 AM Post #134 |
|
Day two of the news blackout of the Crystal Mangum trial by the Durham area state-run media. |
![]() |
|
| Locomotive Breath | Dec 5 2010, 10:53 AM Post #135 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |








3:33 AM Jul 11