| Blog and Media Roundup - Tuesday, April 5, 2011; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 5 2011, 04:51 AM (415 Views) | |
| abb | Apr 5 2011, 04:51 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/printer_friendly/12627100 Lacrosse rape accuser charged in assault 04.04.11 - 10:16 pm The Herald-Sun | File photo by Mark Dolejs<br> Crystal Mangum speaks at a press conference to support the release of her book on Oct. 23, 2008. Mangum was charged with assault with a deadly weapon after a knife fight on Sunday. By John McCann jmccann@heraldsun.com; 419-6601 DURHAM -- Bond has been set at $300,000 secured for Crystal Mangum in an assault case in which she was charged Sunday. On Monday, Mangum was in District Court, along with supporters who continue to stand with the 32-year-old woman who was at the center of the Duke lacrosse case after she made false rape accusations against three players. Police officers Sunday at 3:15 a.m. were dispatched to a stabbing at 3507 Century Oaks Drive. They got there and found a 46-year-old man who had been stabbed in the torso with a kitchen knife, according to police. He was taken to Duke University Hospital and treated for serious injuries. Officers arrested Mangum in a nearby apartment. She is charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. "I believe that Crystal has become a product of what they call battered-women syndrome," former City Councilwoman and school board member Jackie Wagstaff said. "All of her male relationships have been abusive." Wagstaff said she keeps supporting Mangum because, the last time she checked, a person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. "Unless you're Crystal Mangum," Wagstaff quipped. "Does she not deserve the benefit of a doubt?" In December, Mangum was in Durham County Superior Court for an arson trial. Jurors found her guilty of three counts of contributing to the abuse and neglect of minors, causing more than $200 in property damage to the car of the man who was Mangum's boyfriend and resisting a police officer. Those were misdemeanor charges. But jurors did not reach consensus on the major issue, the arson charge -- a felony -- so Superior Court Judge Abraham Jones declared a mistrial. Mangum was sentenced to time already served, 88 days. The Durham County District Attorney's Office decided not to pursue the case further. Victoria Peterson, one of Mangum's supporters, has said Mangum in 2006 became a prosecutorial target after the accusations that three Duke University lacrosse players raped her during an off-campus party. The players were exonerated. The arson case resulted in a court-ordered separation of Mangum and her three young children. After the trial, the judge gave Mangum the OK to reunite with the kids, who were not around Sunday when the stabbing occurred, according to Wagstaff, who didn't specify where the children are living. "They're good," Wagstaff said about the condition of Mangum's kids. Wagstaff said before Sunday, from time to time, she'd check on Mangum, just looking in on her to make sure things were OK. The problem with Mangum is she keeps getting involved in toxic relationships with men, Wagstaff said. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 5 2011, 04:53 AM Post #2 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/12628818/article-Quinn--Williams-withdraw-motion-over-UNC-records?instance=main_article Quinn, Williams withdraw motion over UNC records 04.05.11 - 12:44 am BY BETH VELLIQUETTE bvelliquette@heraldsun.com; 419-6632 HILLSBOROUGH -- Former North Carolina football players Robert Quinn and Deunta Williams have been waging a legal battle for several months in an attempt to deny the N.C. Secretary of State's office access to UNC's Athletic Department records about the two men. But in Orange County Civil Superior Court on Monday, Judge Jim Hardin signed an order that essentially stopped the argument after both sides said they had reached an agreement about what documents the university would provide for the state's investigation into athlete agents. The two sides were scheduled to be in Orange County Civil Superior Court Monday morning to resolve a motion filed by the players to quash an investigative subpoena. But on March 29, the players withdrew their motion after an agreement was made between the office of the Secretary of State and the players. "It was their motion, and we resolved the motion," said Christopher Rawls, an attorney representing the Secretary of State in court Monday morning. The Secretary of State's office obtained additional information from third parties and, combined with the UNC documents that will now be released, is in a position to move forward with its investigation of the agents, according to a court document filed Monday. Secretary of State Elaine Marshall and her chief deputy, Rodney Maddox, are investigating whether athletic agents dealings with Quinn and Williams violated the Uniform Athlete Agents Act. Marshall's office opened the inquiry after learning, among other things, that Quinn received two black diamond watches, a pair of matching earrings and travel accommodations for a trip to Miami. Williams was suspended for four games for violating the benefits and preferential rules after he visited a former player in California and stayed at his home, which was a violation of the rules. The legal battle began on Dec. 17, 2010, when the Secretary of State's office served an investigative subpoena on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The subpoena seeks documents and records for the time period of Jan. 1, 2010, through Dec. 16, 2010, regarding any individuals who were ruled ineligible to play football, dismissed from the UNC football team or temporarily suspended from the team for reasons related to the activities of the agents, prospective agents, financial advisors and/or runners. The subpoenas also requested documents and records from investigations conducted by UNC and the NCAA involving the agents. After the subpoena was issued to UNC, the university informed Quinn and Williams. Their attorneys, Robert Frasier and James "Butch" Williams, filed a motion to quash the subpoena on Jan. 7. "The information being sought is both personal and confidential as it relates to their e-mail account, financial account and telephone records, receipts and other data," their motion stated. And the subpoena doesn't indicate the information would be not disclosed to other parties and it offers no protections of privacy for Quinn and Williams, it states. "Further the Secretary of State office is apparently on a 'fishing expedition' as it relates to this Petitioner [Quinn and Williams]," the motion states. "This subpoena is not a trial subpoena, but is being issued in an effort to further the Secretary of State investigation." Marshall's office responded on Jan. 21 by filing an answer that said the subpoena was not issued to investigate Quinn and Williams. It was for the legitimate government purpose to determine whether the agents or runners violated the law, the answer stated. Marshall's office has the authority to issue subpoenas, register athlete agents, inspect the books and records of registered athlete agents and investigate the conduct of athlete agents to ensure compliance. The Secretary of State's office accused Quinn and Williams of trying to prevent the state from being able to complete a thorough investigation and take action against the agents. UNC did not object to the subpoena, Marshall's office noted. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 5 2011, 04:54 AM Post #3 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/12628139/article-Hearing-set-for-sealed-Edwards-records?instance=main_article Hearing set for sealed Edwards records 04.04.11 - 11:58 pm BY BETH VELLIQUETTE bvelliquette@heraldsun.com; 419-6632 HILLSBOROUGH — A coalition of media companies is pushing for an April 29 date to unseal court documents related to John Edwards’ role in the Rielle Hunter lawsuit against Andrew and Cheri Young. Superior Court Judge Carl Fox set the hearing date. He will hear the motion to open the court records and modify protective orders in Wake County, where he is currently holding court. A number of media companies including local, state and national newspaper and television stations filed a motion on March 16. They are asking that the court unseal the motion to compel discovery from Edwards, and modify protective orders designed to keep the public and the media from seeing documents or depositions filed in the civil case in which Edwards will be called as a witness. Hunter, who was Edwards’ out-of-wedlock lover as he campaigned to be president of the United States of America, had a baby with the former U.S. senator and Chapel Hill resident. She filed a lawsuit against Andrew and Cheri Young claiming they stole an intimate videotape she made of herself and Edwards, which is commonly known as the Edwards sex tape. She wants the tape and other personal photographs back, but the Youngs contend she left them behind in the trash when she moved out of a house at Governor’s Club and they found them. The media’s motion contends that documents and conversations that fall under the protective order between the attorneys and the judge about the case should be open to the public. “These provisions are not consistent with the public’s presumptive right to access court records and proceedings,” the motion states. The motion also asks that should any party seek to file a document under seal, they should first request a hearing for the sealing on the public docket, “articulating the specific compelling public interest that it believes outweighs the public’s right to open courts.” The request would provide the public notice and an opportunity to object to the sealing. The motion also states that the protective order barred dissemination of Edwards’ deposition, but it shouldn’t. “The public interest in Senator Edwards’ deposition and the other depositions in this case is significant, while the privacy interests of Senator Edwards and the parties — who voluntarily participated in events of significant public importance and widely and openly discussed all of the events underlying this litigation — are negligible,” the motion states. The press group is not asking the court to relax restrictions on the dissemination of the sex tape or any other intimate pictures. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 5 2011, 05:01 AM Post #4 |
|
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2011/04/reflections-on-beaty-rulings.html Monday, April 04, 2011 Reflections on the Beaty Rulings [Update, 2.07pm, Monday: Zach Tracer has an excellent summary in the Chronicle, with quotes from a Durham spokesperson and Duke Law prof Thomas Metzloff. The analysis of Metzloff (someone who I know a little & respect a lot) on the Durham aspect of the lawsuit, in light of the Beaty rulings: “This is still, even without punitive damages, potentially high-stakes litigation for the city."] |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 5 2011, 05:11 AM Post #5 |
|
http://www.dukechronicle.com/node/155127/talk 8:54 PM April 4, 2011 Harry Lime reply This is the woman whom Tim Tyson extolled as "somebody's daughter, somebody's sister, somebody's mother and somebody's sweetheart." The woman whom Cathy Davidson heartrendingly described as "a single mother who takes off her clothes for hire partly to pay for tuition at a distinguished historically black college." The woman of whom Wahneema Lubiano and the 88 wrote, with such self-righteousness, "No one is really talking about how to keep the young woman herself central to this conversation, how to keep her humanity before us . . . She doesn’t seem to be visible in this. Not for the university, not for us." The woman of whom (then) Duke professor Houston Baker plaintively asked, "The lacrosse team ... may well feel they can claim innocence and sport their disgraced jerseys on campus, safe under the cover of silent whiteness. But where is the black woman who their violence and raucous witness injured for life? Will she ever sleep well again?" So now, on top of her previous litany of bizarre crimes, this honors graduate of N.C. State has stabbed someone. And the point is not (only) that she is a bad person. She's obviously deeply disturbed and out-of-control. The point -- still difficult to credit after all this time -- is that a significant group of Duke's faculty and administration enthusiastically chose to believe her rather than their own students and desperately wanted her lunatic lies to be true. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 5 2011, 05:13 AM Post #6 |
|
http://www.dukechronicle.com/node/155122/talk 11:23 PM April 4, 2011 GPackwood reply Jack DAPM You said you don't get it. I don't either and never have. But I do understand the extreme political left and their need to amass imperial power at a wealthy private university where they can set up an academic beachhead to fight racism, privilege and gender inequities. A beachhead where peers from all over the nation can make the pilgrimage to Durham to study under the 'funded' master professors. With the funding provided by those they intend to do battle with. That's Irony! It will be interesting to learn if President Brodhead walked into the middle of that 'shadow administrative structure at Duke' when he took the job or whether he enabled that monster to sprout legs. Either way you can't set up an imperial beachhead at an elite university with Division #1 champion athlete carpetbaggers siphoning off funding and garnering all that positive attention. The question has always been for the group at Duke and their friends in Durham...What did they do; what did they know and when did they know it? It will be interesting to watch while graduates of Duke take back their university. :: GP |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 5 2011, 05:15 AM Post #7 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/04/05/1105555/mangum-is-ordered-to-avoid-injured.html Published Tue, Apr 05, 2011 04:06 AM Modified Mon, Apr 04, 2011 11:39 PM Mangum is ordered to avoid injured boyfriend; bail reduced BY JESSE JAMES DECONTO - Staff Writer Published in: Durham County DURHAM A judge lowered Crystal Mangum's bail Monday on charges that she tried to kill her boyfriend. Police were dispatched to 3507 Century Oaks Drive at 3:15 a.m. Sunday. They found a 46-year-old man who had been stabbed in the torso. Mangum, the woman who was at the center of the Duke University lacrosse scandal, was charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. District Court Judge Nancy Gordon lowered Mangum's bail from $500,000 to $300,000 and told her to have no contact with boyfriend R.D. Wilson. "Stay away from him. Don't text him. Don't Facebook him. Don't have anyone else do it on your behalf," she said. FormerCity Councilwoman Jackie Wagstaff, at the tiny jail courtroom Monday with other Mangum supporters, questioned the high bail. "She's been through two traumatic experiences, and she hasn't left Durham yet," Wagstaff said. "If she was a flight risk, she would have been gone by now." Asked the whereabouts of Mangum's three children, Wagstaff said only that they were safe. Wagstaff declined to address the allegation that Mangum assaulted Wilson with a kitchen knife. "At this point it's just hearsay," she said. "I think that we need to look at all of the facts. It's too early to speculate." Five years ago, Mangum accused members of the Duke lacrosse team of sexually assaulting her while she was working as a stripper for an escort service. The accusations were eventually found false and the case was dismissed by state Attorney General Roy Cooper, but not before the case garnered nationwide attention. Mangum made headlines again last year when Durham police charged her with felony arson, child abuse, vandalism and resisting a law enforcement officer. In February 2010, police accused Mangum of slashing the vehicle tires of then-boyfriend Milton Walker, smashing the windshield with a vacuum cleaner and setting fire to a pile of his clothes in a bathtub while the police and her three children were in her apartment. Mangum was convicted of child abuse, vandalism and resisting an officer. The felony arson charge against Mangum was dismissed earlier this year. Staff writer Thomasi McDonald contributed to this report. jesse.deconto@newsobserver.com or 919-812-5097 |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 5 2011, 05:27 AM Post #8 |
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson313.html False Convictions: Another Sorry Legacy of 'Progressivism' by William L. Anderson Recently by William L. Anderson: The Obama Administration’s Vicious Attack on Reade Seligmann As many readers know, I devote a large portion of my time – and my life – to advocating for people who are charged with "crimes" they never committed, and often "crime" that never even occurred. Lew Rockwell graciously permitted me to use this page to advocate for the falsely-accused Duke lacrosse players charged with raping a stripper five years ago. In retrospect, Lew took a huge risk in permitting me to fire broadside after broadside at the corrupt prosecutor, Michael Nifong, who brought the charges and kept the case going. Lew also permitted me to take a hard look at the politicized atmosphere at Duke University, which also drove the false charges and exposed "elite" higher education in a way that demonstrated just how fraudulent American colleges and universities can be. The charges themselves were transparently false, and it was stunning to see how the "professionals" in both Durham, North Carolina (where the event happened), and in the news media tried to spin established details and time into something that logically was impossible. Yet, many people claimed that the very fact that the "professionals" were claiming that the three lacrosse players had committed the crimes for which they were charged was "proof" that everything alleged was true. However, in the end it was the "professionals" who not only were lying, but also were acting under outright delusion, and their delusion was supported by other "professionals." On the outside, people with no connection to the justice system, such as K.C. Johnson, a history professor at Brooklyn College, were the people who were most effective at tearing apart Nifong’s case. (Johnson created the popular Durham-in-Wonderland blog from which he logically dissected the events as they occurred. If one steps back, one can see a curious contrast. On the one hand, the "professionals," people who were prosecutors, lawyers, judges, law professors, and professional advocates for women were (for a long time) united in their chorus of support for Nifong’s case. On the other hand, people from other occupations, students, and just observers knew quickly that the charges were fraudulent and that Nifong and his "victim," Crystal Gail Mangum, were lying. (Some lawyers later turned against Nifong and the attorneys representing the three accused young men from the start were convinced of their innocence.) Should one step back even further, one can see a pattern emerging, one that not only is disturbing but also one that has its roots in the Progressive Movement of more than a century ago, when American intellectuals, businessmen, and politicians joined to overthrow a social order that was responsible for transforming American society from a backwoods, agrarian country into an industrial powerhouse. While "Progressives" were and are championed by the intellectual elite and media pundits as "reformers" who are trying (against those backward capitalists) to make society better, in reality they undermined human liberty in order to impose an order that could move in no direction but toward tyranny. One of the things "Progressives" did was to take many occupations and "professionalize" them. They introduced occupational licensing and they also were able to formalize and organize the "justice" apparatus into a mechanism in which "professionals" would transform the process of investigating crimes and seeking judgment and punishment for perpetrators. Instead of having a system that drew heavily upon community participation, "Progressives" reasoned that the professional police, prosecutors, and "expert" witnesses would not be bound by emotion but would act according to their pure training and knowledge. The system we have today is one in which the "professionals" run everything, from the police investigators to the judges and prison administrators, and it simply is awful. Last year, when I covered the Tonya Craft trial and aftermath in my blog, it really was a battle between the "professionals" and people advocating for the truth. For example, the prosecutors and the judge worked in tandem in order to try to rig a guilty verdict (the "unprofessional" jurors refused to go along with the scam and acquitted her), a police officer fabricated a document in order to fill holes, and "professional" child "advocates" insisted that the stories being told about Craft’s alleged child molesting were true. The jurors saw through the whole thing and had concluded even before the prosecution rested that the whole thing was bogus. Wrongful accusations and convictions often occur because the "professionals" are able to convince jurors that the impossible really has to be true – because the "professionals" say it is true. Because "Progressivism" has been institutionalized to a point where most people cannot imagine a society without its influences, people are easily swayed by foolish arguments made by "professionals" even when logic and reasoning tell them otherwise. As I said at the beginning, I am passionate about advocating for those who are wrongly charged and those who are wrongly convicted. I can think of no worse indictment upon a society than to say it is one in which "justice" is turned upside down and perverted, and as I see it, one of the main reasons that "justice" in America is a crapshoot is the legacy of "Progressivism." A recent book by a former Ohio attorney general, Jim Petro, goes into detail about wrongful convictions, and his verdict on American "justice" is not good. False Justice: Eight Myths that Convict the Innocent lays out reasons why Petro believes that tens of thousands of Americans are in prison, wrongfully convicted. Petro lays out what he says are the myths about the system, and they are: Myth 1: Everyone in prison claims innocence. Myth 2: Our system almost never convicts an innocent person. Myth 3: Only the guilty confess. Myth 4: Wrongful conviction is the result of innocent human error. Myth 5: An eyewitness is the best testimony. Myth 6: Conviction errors get corrected on appeal. Myth 7: It dishonors a victim to question a conviction. Myth 8: If the justice system has problems, the pros will fix them. Steve Weinberg’s review of the book goes into more detail about each of these myths, but he wrongly lays the problem at the feet of political conservatives – even though conservatives have played an important role in this sorry affair. Indeed, every one of these myths exists because the "pros" have helped to create them. As I read through Weinberg’s review, I realize that it is the "professionals," from police to the appellate judges, which have institutionalized injustice to a point where it has become an integral part of the system. Indeed, the very fact that they can do these things with impunity, knowing they almost never will be disciplined at any level for wrongdoing, only ensures that injustices will increase. One of the things that "Progressives" believed was that "public servants" always (or at least mostly) would act "in the public interest" and not seek self-rewards. We do see the political classes in this country, along with other "Progressives" such as college faculty members and media figures lay this "public interest" mantle upon themselves, declaring that they are "public servants" who are preserving all that is good in society. The truth is much different. Like all other human beings, "public servants" are self-interested and all-too-often, the "public interest" fervor with which they supposedly operate is transformed into careerism and self-aggrandizement that serves as what Murray N. Rothbard called "psychic profit" for their actions. Because this problem is deeply institutionalized in American society, it almost is impossible to uproot it, which means in the "justice" system that exonerating the innocent is almost impossible. For example, even though it was obvious that the charges against Tonya Craft were fabricated, she had to spend upwards of a million dollars in order to defend herself, and even then her money ran out. The state agents bringing the case, however, were financed by tax dollars and did not have to worry about spending a penny of their own funds. The Duke defendants spend even more than a million dollars apiece, even though the charges were transparently false from the beginning. From the "professional" medical personnel that helped get the ball rolling in the Craft and Duke cases to the "professional" child counselors and police and prosecutors, we see that through each step, the "professionals" demonstrated themselves to be incapable of doing real research and investigations and were nothing more than cogs in an accusation machine. This financial disconnect alone is a huge reason that there are wrongful convictions, and the fact that prosecutors, police, and judges are protected from being charged with wrongdoing no matter how dishonest or outrageous their misconduct provides only more incentive for the "professionals" to steamroll the innocent into prison and to the death chambers. Convictions are politically popular, so even when a prosecutor gets a wrongful conviction or wrongly brings charges, there generally is no price for him or her to pay. In establishing the various institutions that now permeate our society today, "Progressives" believe that they were providing the nation with a system in which competent "professionals" would guide and order our lives. Instead, they created a system in which "professionals" can be petty dictators, telling others what to do, destroying lives in the process, and exacting tribute from their victims. Wrongful convictions existed before the Progressive Era, but the wrongness was not institutionalized the way it is now. This state of affairs does not exist because people make genuine errors in judgment or identification, but rather because it is in the interest of those who are employed by this system to put innocent people on trial, falsely accuse them, and throw them into prison. Furthermore, the "professionals" in the system tend to watch out for each other. The courts have given prosecutors such immunity that it has become clear that even when they engage in criminal behavior, as was the case that was at the center of the U.S. Supreme Court’s outrageous Connick v. Thompson decision, the authorities have their backs. As I noted before, the Progressive Era did not create injustice, but it managed to institutionalize the processes through which injustices occur. We now are at the mercy of "professionals" who are worse than the worst of the lynch mobs and "experts" who are worse than amateurs when it comes to evaluating evidence. All that is left is raw state power, and the "Progressives" made sure that we would forever be subject to that. April 5, 2011 |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 5 2011, 05:33 AM Post #9 |
|
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-04-05/duke-lacrosse-rape-accusers-new-trouble-crystal-mangum-arrested/# The Duke Lacrosse Accuser's New Trouble by David A. Graham Five years after falsely accusing three Duke lacrosse players of rape, Crystal Mangum has been arrested after allegedly stabbing her boyfriend. David A. Graham and Eve Conant report on the former exotic dancer’s tangled past. Late Sunday night, a man called 911 in Durham, North Carolina, and told the dispatcher that his uncle, Reginald Daye, had just been stabbed in his apartment. When the dispatcher asked who had stabbed him, his nephew said, “Crystal Mangum. The Crystal Mangum,” adding, “I told him she was trouble from the very beginning.” Article - Graham Conant Duke Stripper Crystal Gail Mangum enters the courtroom in the Durham County Jail Thursday, Feb. 18, 2010 for a first appearance on multiple felony charges including attempted murder and arson. (Photo: Harry Lynch, News & Observer / AP Photo) The definite article—and the nephew’s warning—testify to Mangum’s reputation. Since she rose to national prominence almost five years ago, when she accused three members of the Duke University lacrosse team of rape, she has been a divisive figure for residents of the former tobacco town. To her detractors, Mangum, 32, is an unstable criminal, prone to dishonesty and violence and, according to an interview her mother gave to Essence magazine, suffering from serious mental illness. Her defenders say she is a young woman with good intentions who is a victim of bad luck and an unfair justice system. One thing is certain: Her arrest Sunday night is the latest in a string of tangles with the law. Mangum is charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill or inflicting serious injury and is being held on $300,000 bond. Anthony McCullough, a friend and neighbor of Daye, said the couple had been drinking at a cookout at Daye’s aunt’s house Saturday night and returned to the apartment early Sunday morning. When they got home, the two apparently began an argument about the rent that culminated in the alleged stabbing. Daye was taken to Duke University Hospital and could not be reached for comment Monday. Victoria Peterson, a political activist in Durham, has known Mangum since the Duke case, which concluded with official declarations of innocence for all three of the lacrosse players. “Crystal is a very smart and very bright person,” says Peterson. “Many of feel she did not get a fair trial and that a lot of this stems from that. When a poor person is sexually assaulted by people with wealth and power, the cases go a little differently.” McCullough said he warned his friend when Mangum moved in, noting the Duke case and her prior stabbing arrest as red flags. On the other hand, Mangum’s arrest Sunday is her second for alleged attempted murder. In February 2010, her daughter called police, saying: “Please hurry. My mom is going to die.” Officers arrived at the scene to find Mangum fighting with her boyfriend. She had allegedly set his clothes on fire in the bathtub and tried to stab him, and she was charged with attempted first-degree murder, assault and battery, communicating threats, injury to personal property, identity theft, resisting a public officer, five counts of arson, and three counts of misdemeanor child abuse. But when the case went to trial, the jury deadlocked on the felony counts, with nine jurors convinced she was not guilty and three convinced she was. A judge sentenced Mangum to the 88 days in prison she had already served, and the felony count was dropped. In 2002, Mangum was arrested for stealing a cab from a patron at a strip club where she was working. With her blood alcohol at twice the legal limit, she led police on a high-speed chase during which she nearly ran over a police officer before being apprehended. In 1996, she told police in Creedmoor, a town near Durham, that she had been raped three years earlier. But that case was dropped when Mangum failed to follow through on her charges, and her father said he believed the charges were false. But the Duke case, in 2006, offered a combustible mix of race and class that brought swarms of national reporters to Durham. For Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, the case seemed to offer a compelling and painful narrative: Privileged young white men attending an elite university had raped a black single mother who was working as an exotic dancer to support her children and put herself through school at North Carolina Central University, a historically black college in Durham. But that narrative turned out to be false. On March 13, 2006, Mangum and another woman were hired to dance for a party held by members of the school’s lacrosse team at a house near campus. After a disagreement, Mangum and her fellow dancer left the party, and later that night she reported that she had been raped while at the party. Nifong doggedly pursued rape charges against three members of the team, despite Mangum’s frequent changes to her story about that night. The prosecutor, who was later disbarred for his conduct in the rape case, was eventually forced to surrender the case to the state attorney general’s office, which conducted an investigation and then declared the three men innocent. Speaking at a press conference when he dropped the charges against the players, Attorney General Roy Cooper said that while it was common for victims of sexual assault to have trouble reconstructing the sequences of the attack exactly, the inconsistencies in her story were too numerous to make sense of. “The contradictions in her many versions of what occurred and the conflicts between what she said occurred and other evidence like photographs and phone records could not be rectified,” Cooper said. “Our investigation shows that the eyewitness identification procedures were faulty and unreliable. No DNA confirms the accuser’s story. No other witness confirms her story. Other evidence contradicts her story. She contradicts herself.” Although legal wrangling over the case continues, the media and Durham moved on, with Mangum’s account widely discredited. Mangum, however, refused to back down. In 2008, she published a memoir in which she maintained that she had been sexually assaulted. “This is very difficult for me, but this is something that I have to do,” she said at a press conference. “God has given me the grace and the courage to stand up. No one deserves to be sexually assaulted, regardless of their profession.” She graduated NCCU in May 2008 with a degree in police psychology and said she hoped to go to graduate school and help young women like herself. At some point that plan fell apart. Peterson said Mangum had been working but lost her job shortly after the 2010 arrest. It is unclear whether she has a job now. McCullough, the neighbor, said Mangum and her three children had been living with her grandmother but moved into Daye’s apartment about two weeks ago, just days after the two met and began a relationship. Daye was proud of Mangum’s notoriety, McCullough said. Now Mangum is in the news again and must explain the sequence of events that led to her arrest. To defenders like Victoria Peterson, it is victimhood that has triggered Mangum’s brushes with the law: “She is a very nice person, but I think what happened to her has not helped her emotionally.” Nonetheless, Peterson expects the charge will come to naught, just like the previous case. “She probably won’t be found guilty in this case either. From what I’ve heard, probably this was self-defense,” she said. But Peterson’s view is not universal. Like Daye’s nephew, McCullough said he warned his friend when Mangum moved in, noting the Duke case and her prior stabbing arrest as red flags. “I said, ‘Man, that’s too early, you don’t even know this woman,’” McCullough said. “I told him be careful.” David Graham is a reporter for Newsweek covering politics, national affairs, and business. His writing has also appeared in The Wall Street Journal and The National in Abu Dhabi. Eve Conant is a Newsweek staff reporter covering immigration, politics, social and culture issues. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 5 2011, 06:40 AM Post #10 |
|
http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2011/04/05/where-are-they-now-rodney-king-the-jena-6-and-the-duke-lacrosse-stripper/ Where Are They Now? Rodney King, the Jena 6, and the Duke Lacrosse stripper Category: General William Houston, a graduate of the University of Alabama, has written a phenomenal expose about B-list “civil rights” icons. You may read it below: One of my favorite hobbies for several years now has been keeping track of former “civil rights” celebrities after their fifteen minutes of undeserved media fame are over. It is an excellent way to demonstrate how political correctness has corrupted American journalism. Everyone in America has at least a passing familiarity with these victims of White “racism,” but few are familiar with their trials since then, which the mainstream media has refused to give the same amount of inordinate attention. Where are these martyrs for “social justice” now? Rodney King Rodney King is my personal favorite: in the years since the Los Angeles riots, which led to the death of 55 people, King has been arrested for soliciting and having sex with a transvestite prostitute in Hollywood, beating his wife, multiple DUIs, vandalism, beating his own child, and indecent exposure in a public park while being high on PCP. In 2003, King drove his car into a house after weaving through traffic and traveling at a speed over 100 mph. Two years later, he was arrested after threatening to kill his daughter and former girlfriend. Don Lemon recently glamorized Rodney King in a CNN Presents special report called “Race and Rage: The Beating of Rodney King” to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the alleged “racist beating” of this scumbag. King won a cool $3.8 million dollar settlement in his civil suit. He used the money to start a hip hop record label. A month ago, Rodney King was stopped by the LAPD for erratic driving and was issued a citation for driving with an expired license. Twenty years later, Rodney King is still a threat to public safety. Jena 6 The Jena 6 were six black students in Jena, Louisiana who in an unprovoked assault beat a White student named Justin Barker nearly to death in 2006. Al Sharpton marched on Jena with 15,000 to 20,000 supporters to protest the clear injustice that was done to Barker’s black attackers. The Jena 6 movement was hailed in the mainstream media at the time as “the first struggle of the 21st century Civil Rights Movement.” In 2007, Jesse Ray Beard was accused, convicted and sentenced for simple battery, simple criminal damage to property less than $500 and simple assault. In 2008, Bryant Purvis was arrested for assaulting a fellow high school student in Texas. Corwin Jones was arrested for trespassing and simple battery following an incident in which he struck a man from behind. Also in 2008, Mychal Bell spat in the face of his female attorney and pushed her to the ground. He was arrested later that year for shoplifting, resisting arrest, and simple assault after trying to steal $700 worth of clothes from a Dillard’s department store. In 2010, Bell was arrested and charged with battery after punching someone who was “running his mouth” at a Jena barber shop. Catrina Wallace, the sister of Robert Bailey, founder of “Organizing in the Trenches,” and central organizer of the Jena 6 protests, was arrested in “Operation Third Option” in 2009 and was recently convicted on three counts of distribution of a controlled substance. She faces decades in prison. Marcus Jones, father of Mychal Bell, is calling for a Justice Department investigation into the arrest and conviction of Ms. Wallace. Duke Lacrosse Stripper In 2006, a black stripper named Crystal Magnum falsely accused three Duke lacrosse players, all of whom were White, of raping her at a party. Like the Jena 6, the Duke lacrosse scandal ignited a media firestorm about White racism and brought out all the usual suspects. Hysteria swept Duke University. The accused players were suspended, the team’s coach was fired, and the entire lacrosse season was cancelled. The case later fell apart after it became obvious that Magnum had fabricated her story. This morning Crystal Magnum was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon after attempting to kill her boyfriend with a kitchen knife. The officers who arrived on the scene found that Magnum had succeeded in stabbing him in the torso. In December, jurors found Magnum guilty of three counts of contributing to the abuse and neglect of minors (her own children who were taken away by social services), resisting arrest, and $500 worth of property damage. She had set fire to the clothes of her then boyfriend in a bathtub. Game I suggest we play a game: share the facts above on various websites and see how long it takes to get banned, down voted, or accused of “racism.” I’m about to try this out myself. We can compare scores in the comments. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Apr 5 2011, 06:45 AM Post #11 |
|
http://williamlanderson.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-if-you-are-falsely-accused-part-ii.html Tuesday, April 5, 2011 What if you are falsely accused? Part II: Choosing legal help In the first part of this series, I pointed out that if the authorities falsely accuse you of a sex-related crime (or anything else), you should NEVER talk to the police. The police are not interested in finding out what happened; they are interested in finding a way to get you thrown into prison, whether or not you did anything wrong. This post gives advice on choosing an attorney, which other than deciding not to talk to the police is the most important decision you will make. Many an innocent person has been railroaded into prison because of bad legal representation, and people who have been acquitted of these kinds of charges will tell you that their choice of attorney really mattered. The vast majority of people who are falsely accused never have been in trouble with the law before and, thus, are not exactly on a first-name basis with criminal defense attorneys. They often take the first name out of the phone book, or get the name of an attorney from someone else, or a website in which the lawyer promises to be the Second Coming of F. Lee Bailey or Johnny Cochran. I have been personally involved in four of these kinds of cases and each time the defendant has had to fire his or her original counsel, which means thousands of dollars thrown down the drain. I have seen attorneys attempt to sell out their clients, refuse to look at exculpatory material, and tell their clients to do nothing and let them do all the work. (And then they proceed to do the minimum amount of work until the defendant is in a huge hole.) Believe me, it is MUCH better to have good counsel at the start, as opposed to having to fire the attorney mid-way through the case and then begin afresh with a new lawyer. So, how do you do it, and, more important, how do you afford it? The first thing to remember is that your attorney needs to be someone who has at least some experience with these kinds of cases. As Tonya Craft has told me more than once, these cases are very different than any other kind of criminal charge. The public is much more likely to believe the charges, and the courts have been willing to accept "evidence" that is not evidence at all. Furthermore, as Tonya saw, more often than not, the judge may very well act like a member of the prosecution team. (I will say that "judge" brian outhouse's conduct during the trial was on the extreme side, but a lot of people who have been wrongfully convicted in these kinds of cases had trials in which the judges were hostile to them throughout the proceedings.) The second thing is that the attorney you choose needs to be amenable to the belief that you are innocent of the charges. Criminal defense attorneys usually represent guilty people, and like everyone else, they become jaded over time dealing with liars, crooks, thieves, rapists, and murderers. Many times, they don't like their clients, would not want to meet them in a dark alley, and believe that they are guilty as sin, but still do their professional duty and represent them as they should. It is very rare that a criminal defense attorney has an innocent client and all-too-often, that lawyer fails to recognize his or her client's innocence and immediately tries to find a way to plead out the accused. If you are innocent and want to fight the charges, and your attorney is suggesting that you plead out, fire that attorney immediately. Don't wait for him or her to have a change of heart. An attorney who will want to plead you out is an attorney who does not care about you, your innocence, or doing what is right. No, if you want to prevail, you have to get a lawyer who believes in you and your innocence. You need to get a lawyer who will take a hard look at exculpatory evidence, and who will be open to receiving material from you. For example, Tonya had very good attorneys, but she also played a major role in her defense, poring over material, putting together timelines, and unearthing exculpatory material. You have to be willing to do the same, and if your attorney wants you to sit back and be passive, be active instead and say, "You're fired." I have seen one case in which the attorney lied to his client and read NO material on the case before the bond hearing and then had no argument at all, which meant the client remained in jail. There is another case in which the attorney clearly did not know anything about how child molestation cases worked and never even raised a question about some very untenable claims the prosecution was making. And on and on. Believe me, it does not take much for a lawyer to sell out his or her client, pocket the money, while you spend the rest of your life in prison for something that never happened. This sad event happens more time than you ever can imagine, and the attorney will not shed a tear as you are dragged away to hell on earth. So, how do you choose an attorney? The first thing you have to do is to find out whether or not he or she is familiar with cases such as yours involving false accusation. If so, then you need to find out if the counsel is willing to fight for you. Keep in mind that you are employing the attorney, not the other way around. Second, see if there is a personal connect. Can you work with this person? Does this attorney have references that you can call? Has he or she been able to get other falsely-accused people acquitted? Third, do NOT hire someone who is part of the "courthouse crowd," especially of the courthouse where you will be tried. Tonya's first attorney, a local lawyer in Catoosa County, immediately tried to get her to plead out. There was no way that he was going to be willing to antagonize Chris Arnt, and he was all-too-happy to sell Tonya down the river. A local member of the "good ole boy" crowd will not fight for you, for that means taking on the local "justice" apparatus and doing battle with his drinking and lunch buddies. That will not work. There is a hazard in hiring someone from out-of-town, and that is the fact that the judge and others might be hostile to him or her simply because of the out-of-town label. During Tonya's trial, "judge" brian outhouse was openly hostile to her counsel, and both Len "The Man" Gregor and Chris "Facebook-Cruisemaster" Arnt many times during the proceedings reminded jurors that they counsel was not local, which I guess they thought would inflame the jurors to vote "guilty." (It turns out that the jurors were not the in-bred hicks that Arnt, Gregor, and outhouse thought they would be. The only in-bred hicks in the building were those employed by Catoosa County and the State of Georgia.) Then there is the cost. You have to remember this simple fact when you are falsely accused: your life as you have known it is over. Over. Forget your career, your job, your friends, your church, and maybe even your family. People who shook your hand now will turn away; you are likely to be fired, or at least suspended from your job, and even if you are acquitted, a sizable group of people will claim that you "got off on a technicality" and really are a child molester or a rapist. (In modern America, unfortunately, "innocence" has become nothing more than a "legal technicality.") Most of us don't have $50-$60 thousand of spare change lying around, so that is going to mean you will have to be created in your spending. One of the reasons that prosecutors love false accusation cases is that the defendants generally are not wealthy, yet are forced to pay for the legal counsel while the taxpayers (including you) finance the prosecution. Just this financial disconnect alone is a huge reason that thousands of people are wrongfully-convicted in American courts today. This might mean a second mortgage, selling your house and anything else you own, cashing in on your pension, or whatever it takes. If you cannot afford an attorney, that means that you will be assigned a public defender, who is NOT going to be competent if you go to trial. Furthermore, the public defender will be a product of the "courthouse crowd," which means it is likely he or she will ignore exculpatory information and offer you up as a sacrifice to the prosecutors. I have a friend who was convicted in federal court in what truly was a smarmy action by the feds. First, the feds seized her property, depriving her of being able to pay a lawyer, with the government assigning her counsel that demanded she plead out. My friend, who believed she was innocent, insisted on going to trial, so her court-appointed lawyers undermined her, refused to present exculpatory evidence during the trial, and let a jerk of a prosecutor win a conviction. You want to get a lawyer who believes you are innocent and understands the nature of these kinds of cases. Anything less than that will land you in prison for the rest of your life. Posted by William L. Anderson at 12:01 AM |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 5 2011, 07:48 AM Post #12 |
|
Absolutely great summary! |
![]() |
|
| cks | Apr 5 2011, 08:39 AM Post #13 |
|
and somebody's attempted murderer |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







3:30 AM Jul 11