Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Durham needs to stop kowtowing to the carpetbaggers

In recent days, many in the cash-strapped city of Durham have unabashedly embarrassed themselves by kowtowing to the malicious vendetta-style jihad called upon by the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Sparked by Rae Evans’s call to arms during an interview on CBS – TV’s “60 Minutes,” she directed the focus of their ire on former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, when she stated that because he picked on the “wrong families” (wealthy, privileged, and not people of color), he was “going to pay every day for the rest of his life.” However the scope of this desire for revenge goes far beyond Mr. Nifong, and encompasses anyone who is supportive or gives sanctuary to the Nifongs. Also in their crosshairs are individuals who in any way, shape, or form contributed to the prosecution of their precious sons. And prime among this latter group is the Duke Lacrosse accuser, Crystal Mangum.

Late in the evening of Wednesday, February 17, 2010, a 9-1-1 call was placed by Crystal Mangum’s 9 year old daughter, fearing for the safety of her mother who was in an alleged altercation with a man with whom she had been in a relationship. Durham police, under the spell of the carpetbagger jihad, naturally focused on Ms. Mangum and with their mouths watering started ringing up the tab. Ms. Mangum was accused of scratching, punching, and throwing things at her boyfriend, which obviously warrants a charge of attempted first degree murder… right? Then she allegedly said to her boyfriend, “I’m going to stab you”… definitely communicating a threat. Resisting arrest is a good catch-all vague charge that is indiscriminately used, overused, and is useful to automatically put a suspect in a bad light with the media and public. Now the Durham police probably knew the identity of Ms. Mangum before arriving at the scene of the 9-1-1 call, and when Ms. Mangum allegedly gave the name “Marella Mangum,” they tacked on a charge of identity theft… very creative on the part of Durham’s finest. There are other ridiculous charges leveled at Ms. Mangum that are so absurd they defy comprehension.

Upset with her boyfriend she takes some of his clothes, places them in the bath tub, and sets them on fire. Now the Durham officers, who are to my understanding present during this event, stand around and call the fire department instead of turning on water in the bath tub to put out the fire. The delay in time waiting for the fire department to arrive provides plenty of time for smoke to really inflict smoke-related damage throughout the house. And, of course, she is charged with five counts of arson, for each article of clothing burned. (To my understanding, if a house is set on fire, the arsonist is charged with one count of arson, not a count for each item consumed by the fire. Therefore, Ms. Mangum’s charge is similar to that of an arsonist setting five houses ablaze?)

Undoubtedly there have been thousands upon thousands of domestic dispute calls in which couples have attacked one another and made threatening remarks, but to my knowledge they have not been charged with “attempted first degree murder.” Only the selective justice system of North Carolina has chosen to singularly charge Ms. Mangum thusly. In addition, I am unaware of a party in a domestic dispute being held under a million dollar bond… other than Crystal Mangum. The disparity of her treatment compared with others in domestic situations is uncannily similar to the disparity of the treatment Mike Nifong suffered… the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933 (the latter a fact that the media goes to extreme measures to keep hidden from the public).

The lunacy of events in the cash-strapped city proceeds as a judge reduces Ms. Mangum’s bond from a million dollars to merely $250,000.00. But then he goes another step further by ruling that if she is able to meet bond, she is to be under house arrest. I’ve never heard of such.

And while the Durham police, court, media, and Durhamites who are under the spell of the biased media gleefully celebrate the misfortune that has befallen Ms. Mangum, the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants continue their avaricious quest to appropriate thirty million dollars from the cash-strapped city… a city which has already wasted millions of taxpayer dollars in attorney fees to defend the city against the greedy ones. It is truly an irony… the position in which the city of Durham finds itself. It is a position in which the city does the bidding of the carpetbaggers with gusto, while at the same time it is trying to defend itself from them. It reminds me of the scene in the movie “Animal House” in which the Kevin Bacon fraternity pledge goes through a formal initiation in which he receives a swat on the rear and then remarks, “Thank you, Sir. May I have another?” When is the cash-strapped city finally going to stop kowtowing to the carpetbaggers and tell them that enough is enough? For them to do so, all they need to do is allow intellect and logic to rule over hype and emotion.

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

What about her kids? Oh, I forgot, there are bigger (read: adult, political) issues here.

DeHall said...

Nice....Linking the Duke LAX families to CGM's latest legal issues is as irresponsible as WRAL calling Mike Nifong for his reaction to her arrest....I expected better.

FWIW, "Marella" is CGM's older sister.

Whatchoo talkin' bout, Sydney? said...

It is a position in which the city does the bidding of the carpetbaggers with gusto...

Sydney, you failed to identify even one situation where the City of Durham has "kowtowed to the 'carpetbaggers'", much less 'done their bidding'.

[Rae Evans] stated that because he picked on the “wrong families” (wealthy, privileged, and not people of color)...

No, she was referring to families that were simply not inclined to allow Nifong to get away with his unethical and illegal actions.

Their fight is a fight that will improve the justice system in Durham for all people, which will affect poor folks and 'people of color' more than others. That is something that you and others of your ilk are too obtuse to recognize.


As to house arrest after being released on bond - that is not unusual, your not having heard of it notwithstanding. She is accused of threatening someone with bodily harm, and endangering her children. Do you really think that she should be loose on the streets?

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Sydney? said...

DeHall - FWIW, "Marella" is CGM's older sister.

Do you have any idea what the real Marella does for a living? Did she have to enter a life of sexual debauchery and degradation in order to pay her way through school? Does she have 3 illegitimate children, and have unsafe sex with multiple partners over short periods of time?

Or is that just the way Crystal rolls?

DeHall said...

Whatchoo -- I do not, my information came (unfortunately) from CGM's book, "The Last Dance For Grace". There's little more than names of (and how poorly she was treated by) her family.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

I knew sooner or later you would try to blame the current cgm incident on the Lacrosse players.

Sidney. you did not disappoint me.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Well you finally learned the correct name of David Evans mother.

Like a lot of things in this case, you missed the meaning of Mrs. Evans statement.

She was telling nifong he made a mistake charging three innocent men with rape based on the false accusation of cgm. She was warning him the families could resist and could fight back.

He could have done the right thing and declared that no rape had happened. That was apparent after the State Crime lab tested the rape kit and found no evidence of rape. But that would not win him the election. So he tried to railroad three innocent men.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

It was unusual for a rape suspect to have to put up a $400,000 bond. Yet that was what the Lacrosse defendants had to do.

Michael Jermaine Burch did not have to put up that large a bond. While out on bond, he raped again.

You don't see anything unusual about that?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

For all your trying, you have failed to show that anything happened other than that cgm falsely accusing the Lacroees players of rape and nifong trying to exploit the situation for his own purposes.

What makes you think you have proven Lacrosse case involvement in cgm's latest run in with the law?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Tell us why you believe a crime happened and that the Lacrosse players were guilty.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

nifong did not bother to interview cgm until 9 months into the case? How does that show he was supportive of her?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Durham could have kept their legal bills down by not involving themselves in the attempted frame up of the innocent Lacrosse players.

They should have listened to Sergeant Shelton.

Maybe they should have listened to innocent Lacrosse Player David Evans when he said the charges were false>

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

The city of Durham could let the case go on to discovery and to trial. What are they afraid of, if the Lacrosse players are carpetbaggers with no case.

Why is Durham so afraid to have the case go to trial. Why is Durham so reluctant to exonerate itself?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

nifong did a lot of public appearances and interviews in which he put the Lacrosse players in a bad light. As a District Attorney, he was obligated not to do such things.

Why do you defend nifong for doing this?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

None of the three defendants resisted the police the way cgm did. It seems cgm was more afraid of facing the authorities than cgm was. There was no wall of silence.

unbekannte said...

crazy etc. sidney:

Why are you so astounded to see that no other prosecutor in NC history was ever dis barred, other than nifing.

No prosecutor other than nifong went to such lengths to show he deserved disbarment.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

If cgm was so firmly in the crosshairs of your "carpetbagger jihad", then why was she not sued?

I remind you that cgm has been singularly unwilling to answer questions about the case. If she had been sued, cgm would have defaulted. The Lacrosse players had no reason to worry about losing a suit.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

I posted this on a previous blog entry about the "carpetbagger jihad:

"more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Will you claim that this incident was orchestrated by the "Carpetbagger Jihad" in order to silence cgm?

[several paragraphs edited out]

February 18, 2010 7:24 AM"

How crazy are you?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Let me put this another way.

When ordered to give DNA samples, the Lacrosse team did so, even though the NTO was not Constitutional. And when the three defendants were arrested, each submitted to police authority.

Why did cgm fight with the police, attempt to torch her house and then threaten her boyfriend with bodily harm?

Are you going to claim now that the carpetbagger jihad put her up to that?

unbekannte said...

crazy etc. sidney:

Let's go into this again.

Rae Evans reacted to after nifong, who had no evidence of any crime, no evidence linking David Evans to any crime, had him charged with a crime and arrested.

To this add, nifong actively tried to prevent the presentation of any and all exculpatory evidence.

The lacrosse defendants are acting through the judicial system. nifong tried to circumvent the judicial system.

I say again, nifong is getting fairer treatment than the treatment he intended for the three falsely accused innocent Defendants.

JSwift said...

Sidney,

I take no pleasure in Ms. Mangum's problems. I believe that she is a troubled young woman. This episode appears to provide some confirmation for that belief. I agree that she appears to have been dramatically overcharged.

However, this may be your most ridiculous post. You have provided absolutely no evidence to support your bizarre allegation that this decision was dictated by the former defendants.

I ask that you retract this post. DeHall described it best...irresponsible.

As you should have learned by now, your unfortunate habit of making unsubstantiated and baseless allegations subjects you to justified ridicule.

Walt said...

Now Syd, I know you rely on Nifong for most of your understanding of the law, but even he can't be as ignorant of the law as your statement: "And while the Durham police, court, media, and Durhamites who are under the spell of the biased media gleefully celebrate the misfortune that has befallen Ms. Mangum, the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants continue their avaricious quest to appropriate thirty million dollars from the cash-strapped city… a city which has already wasted millions of taxpayer dollars in attorney fees to defend the city against the greedy ones."

We have covered this one before. But, Durham is in North Carolina and thus covered by North Carolina's doctrine of sovereign immunity. Under our law N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-485 (1994) provides a waiver of sovereign immunity only to the extent that the city purchases liability insurance.

Thus, Durham is immune from any damages beyond the liability insurance they purchased. There is no way the plaintiffs, who were wrongly accused and are innocent can impose any financial harm on Durham, beyond what the city continues to inflict on itself.

Of course, the lawsuits are not about damages. The lawsuits are about imposing a monitor on the DPD to assure that agency does not perpetrate another hoax like this one.

Walt-in-Durham

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Compare defendants, the innocent Duke Lacrosse players and cgm. Which acted like a hooligan when confronted by police?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

You claim nifong showed great forbearance in not seeking indictments until a month and a half after the "crime".

The Lacrosse players showed great forbearance in not suing cgm. Any suit they filed against cgm would have been an easy win for them.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc sidney:

When saying nifong did not seek indictments until a month and a half after the "crime". To what "crime" do you refer? The only possible crime that involved cgm and the Lacrosse Players would have been cgm's false accusations against the Lacrosse players, i.e. filing a false police report.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why don't you tell us why there was no Lacrosse player DNA found on cgm. At that improper, overly suggestive lineup at which cgm "identified" her attackers, she claimed that Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligman penetrated her. The medical record says her attackers ejaculated on her. The medical record notes that no condoms were used>

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Although the medical record noted that cgm had said no condoms were used, in spite of saying he had read the record, nifong said he believed condoms had been used.

Did he ever attempt to find a condom which would have had both Lacrosse player DNA and cgm DNA?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Are you aware that no DNA matching cgm's DNA was ever found in the bathroom in which the rape supposedly took place?

Nifong Supporter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nifong Supporter said...

To JSwift:

Crystal Mangum was excessively overcharged, as you sorta agree. Attempted first degree murder? People who engage in domestic violence and critically injure one another are not even charged with attempted first degree murder.

True, I have no proof that the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants or their lawyers specifically instructed the Durham police and prosecutors to ring up these specific charges. However, by doing so, the Durham Police and prosecutors continued to carrying out the carpetbaggers' vendetta against everything that went against their sons (Nifong, Mangum, etc.) in accordance with the jihad called for by Rae Evans on "60 Minutes."

Now then, Mr. JSwift, how would you explain the excessive charges against Ms. Mangum? Coincidence?

(Note: I am going to delete the previous comment I made because it was written in a confusing way. This comment is more explanatory.)

unbekannte said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

You seem to make a lot of allegations without having verification.

You have claimed there was a crime, even though there was no evidence of a crime. What evidence do you have to support that allegation?

You say cgm alleged a crime. You got that wrong. Kim Roberts'(Pittman?) 911 phone call did not allege rape. When cgm went to the Duke access center, she did not initially allege rape. When she was asked if she had been raped, she answered Yes. When Durham Police Sergeant Shelton talked to her, she denied rape. After she went to DUMC, she again alleged rape.

Her word was, first, nothing, then yes I was raped, then no I wasn't raped, then yes I was raped. That is not the word of a credible witness.

unbekannte said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

You again got it wrong.No one declared any jihad against nifong. Mrs. Rae Evans warned nifong that he could not get away with the unjustified illegal prosecution of her son. It was a warning that nifong could not violate the law, legal ethics, and the US Constitution with impunity.

What are families to do in the face of a wrongful, unethical prosecution of one of their members?

If nifomg had handled the situation correctly, i.e. dropping the case once it became obvious that cgm was a false accuser, he would have not caused himself all his well-deserved grief.

February 24, 2010 2:01 PM

edited Feb 24, 2010 2:18 PM

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

You are very indignant that AG Roy Cooper and his office reviewed the evidence and concluded the Lacrosse players were innocent. Why does the innocence of the Lacrosse players upset you.

A prosecutor is required to presume innocence of a suspect. nifong had no evidence when he made his guilt presuming statements. Why does it not upset you that nifong presumed the Lacrosse players guilty without evidence?

February 24, 2010 2:15 PM

edited Feb 24, 2010 2:20 PM

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc: sidney:

Why do you refuse to recognize what was exculpatory about the evidence, that it did not connect any Lacrosse player to the alleged crime?

What justified nifong's prosecution of the Lacrosse players in the face of exgulpatory evidence.

Remember, nifong's obligation, once he decided to prosecute was to prove both that the crime happened and that the Lacrosse players committed it.

Why do you refuse to recognize this fundamental criminal law?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why did the cash strappped city of Durham allow nifong to take over the Duke case? nifong wanted to exploit the case for political reasons.

Had Durham behaved honorably in the beginning, maybe now they wouldn't be facing the lawsuits from the three innocent falsely accused Lacrosse Players.

JSwift said...

Now then, Mr. JSwift, how would you explain the excessive charges against Ms. Mangum? Coincidence?

Sidney,

I suspect the straightforward: the DPD routinely overcharges in arrests. As I noted earlier, however, I agree that these charges seem excessive.

However, if you see a conspiracy, I suggest that you consider another theory. Commenters on other sites, for example, have questioned whether the Durham defendants in the lawsuits (who, unlike the lacrosse players, actually control the actions of the DPD) have something to hide and want to make sure that Ms. Mangum is unable to testify about their roles in the frame. Many of these commenters do not see Mr. Nifong as a leader of the frame, but rather as a convenient scapegoat. He and Ms. Mangum unfairly have taken all of the blame.

As you know, the failure of the DPD to conduct a bona fide investigation in one of the most publicized cases in the City's history has never been examined or explained. The City already has conceded "that these young men are innocent of the charges" and "that the allegations of rape, sexual assault and kidnapping were unfounded." These commenters suggest that Durham and the DPD seek to avoid disclosure in the lawsuits. As you know, Durham has battled to avoid discovery.

The claim that the DPD was conducting a “good investigation” before Mr. Nifong became involved on March 24 is demonstrably false.

The DPD investigation violated departmental guidelines and procedures. Virtually every step of this investigation was deeply flawed. The DPD repeatedly failed to interview witnesses, investigate available evidence, re-interview witnesses when their statements were contradicted by evidence, and, most importantly, make any attempt to reconcile the many versions of the accuser’s story or to challenge her when her accusation was contradicted by all other evidence. The DPD ignored, avoided and ultimately hid exculpatory evidence. They allegedly attempted to create evidence by filing inaccurate affidavits and reports and intimidating and influencing witnesses. Members of the DPD apparently violated policy with their inflammatory public statements, the method in which they conducted lineups, and their failure to maintain a contemporaneous record of their activities.

During the ethics hearing, Inv. Himan admitted under oath that he testified before a grand jury and obtained indictments with no evidence to support the accusation—he asked “with what?” in conversations with superiors. Yet, these superiors endorsed the decision to ask for indictments. Himan also admitted under oath that Sgt. Gottlieb prepared affidavits (signed by Himan) in connection with search warrants and the non-testimonial order based on false information.

These theorists provide a reminder that several of Ms. Mangum's friends and associates were arrested during the course of the original criminal case. The conspiracy theorists alleged at that time that those arrests were used to control Ms. Mangum. I have seen nothing concrete to support this theory, but agree that the activities of the DPD must be investigated.

Any thoughts from an ardent conspiracy theorist?

unbekannte said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Comparing Mrs. Rae Evans' single statement defending her son with nifong's multiple statements publicly condemning him, which individual initiated and conducted a vendetta?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Tell us why chargibg three innocen wrongfully men with a crime when there is no evidence of the crime(you have provided none) and no evidence connecting the three innocent men to the alleged crime(you yourself have admittrd the crime was no more than alleged) was not absurd.

cgm's word, yes I was raped, no I was not raped, yes I was, yes I was, no I wasn't, yes I was, you consider that credible evidence of a crime?

cgm being steered into id'ing three men in an improper, unduly suggestive lineup, you obviously consider that credible. You ignore the fact that the lineup was conducted after forensic exam of the rape kit revealed no evidence of a rape.

I really wonder of the competence of nifong's henchmen. Did mark gottlieb really know what he was doing. He steered cgm into 3 id's all of which could be successfully challenged in court.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Maybe you will next claim that the "carpetbagger jihad" ordered gottlieb to screw up the lineup.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Rae Evans made one statement. She was defending her son

nifong gave many many interviews in which he tried to inflame public opinion against David Evans, Reade Seligman, and Colin Finnerty. As events would subsequently show, nifong had no evidence, no probable cause to believe that a crime had happened, nothing to establish any Lacrosse player had any contact with the false accuser.

Yet you accuse Rae Evans of communicating inappropriate threats while you defend nifong's misconduct.

Really, sidney!

February 25, 2010 3:30 AM

Edited Feb 25, 2010, 8:44 AM

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

durham could have avoided all legal costs, all liability had durham backed down on supporting nifong's charging three falsely accused, obviously innocent men with a felony which never happened.

What would durham have done had Ben Himan quoted in court prior to the ethics trial nifong's statement, "YOU KNOW WE'RE F----D"(emphasis added).

Maybe you are going to say that the "carpetbagger jihad" ordered Himan to say that at the ethics trial at which nifong became the only prosecutor in North Carolina History to be disbarred.

unbekannte said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

You don't see the lunacy of the durham Court placing a bond of $400,000 on each of the Lacrosse players, then putting a lower bond on michael jermaine burch, allowing him to go free and rape again?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

I am surprised you are not blaming the "carpetbagger jihad" for planting the non Lacrosse player DNA on cgm.

February 25, 2010 8:53 AM

Edited Feb 25, 2020 8:56 AM