Thursday, April 8, 2010

Crystal Mangum: victimized by Carpetbagger Jihad justice and the media

Wednesday afternoon I had to rummage through the garbage in order to find Tuesday’s edition of the News & Observer. Although I had been through Tuesday’s paper a day earlier, a friend told me of an article on Ms. Mangum that I had evidently missed. And sure enough, tucked away deep in the bowels of the second section on page 7 was an article titled, “Mangum faces arson charge.” Maybe I missed it because I was halfway expecting the article to be on the front page or second page of the “Triangle & Co.” section, and not hidden amongst the obituaries.

To recap what transpired on Monday, April 5, 2010, for the many who did not find the News & Observer article: the hearing for Ms. Mangum which was finally to be held regarding the alleged crimes for which she was charged two months earlier in February, was postponed because the assistant district attorney was sick. The public defender representing Ms. Mangum was expecting the hearing to take place the following day. However, late Monday afternoon, the prosecutors went before a Durham County grand jury which issued indictments against her on the following: first-degree arson, three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile, injury to personal property, and resisting a public officer.

It is of interest to note that even though police said she tried to kill her boyfriend and was charged at the time of her arrest with attempted first-degree murder, no such charge was sought by prosecutors from the grand jury. Miraculously, other charges which were heaped on Ms. Mangum on her arrest but were not considered by the grand jury included: three counts of misdemeanor child abuse, resisting arrest, identity theft, communicating threats, and assault and battery. Why, you might ask, were these charges not sought before the grand jury? Answer: Because the Durham police and prosecutors knew the charges were false and that they could not substantiate them. However, filing the bogus charges did accomplish its intent, which was to form the basis for obtaining an outrageously high bond which Ms. Mangum and her family could not afford. That would ensure that Ms. Mangum would spend a significantly long time in jail. In short, the bogus charges were filed against Ms. Mangum for punitive reasons only… to see that she received as much jail time as possible. There is no doubt in my mind that the prosecutors never seriously considered bringing charges before the grand jury other than the ones they eventually did bring against Ms. Mangum on Monday. In order for the judge to hand down a $1million bond, some serious charges, such as attempted first degree murder, needed to be in play.

Unfortunately, this unfair and inappropriate use of filing punitive charges against someone based on that person’s past acts, is unjust and unethical. Make no doubt about it, Ms. Mangum was excessively punished by Durham police, prosecutors, and judges because of her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. This is no secret… everyone knows it to be the truth, but no one, including those in the media or public officials, will speak openly about it. Attorneys licensed by the North Carolina State Bar are particularly reticent to speak about anything related to the Duke Lacrosse case, because they are terrified by that very same unregulated agency that has control over their licenses and livelihoods. I am sure that everyone connected to the legal travesty that has enveloped Ms. Mangum will deny, with a straight face, that Ms. Mangum’s treatment had anything to do with her past. This situation is not unlike the Las Vegas judge who sentenced O. J. Simpson to excessively long prison sentences when he was convicted in what was obviously a sting operation. She went on record and upfront stated that the sentence given to Mr. Simpson had absolutely nothing to do with the murder of his wife and her friend Ron Goldman. But everyone knows that it was nothing more than payback. And that is what Durham is engaged in with its actions against Ms. Mangum… nothing more than payback.

What is really idiotic is that the cash-strapped city of Durham, by going after Ms. Mangum because of her role in the Duke Lacrosse case, is feeding into the Carpetbagger Jihad Movement’s vendetta goals. And it is the very people behind this vengeful and avaricious movement who are seeking thirty million dollars from the city of Durham, and has already cost the city multi-millions of dollars in attorneys’ fees to defend itself (from them). Then the Carpetbagger families of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants have the unmitigated gall to tell the media that they are not seeking $10 million for each of their sons out of greed, but they are doing it to improve the city of Durham’s criminal justice system. How?... by diverting moneys from services and salaries of the Durham Police department to pay lawyers’ fees in defending the city against their extortionistic lawsuits? Well, the people are not buying that line of reasoning, no more than they believe that the Las Vegas judge sentenced O. J. Simpson solely on the merits of the particular incident for which he was charged, and not taking the unsolved murder of his wife and her friend into consideration. Nor are Tar Heelians buying the Carpetbaggers’ altruistic reasons for seeking a total of $30 million from Durham, anymore than they believe that the domestic violence charges and bail against Ms. Mangum are based solely on that case and not related to her role in the Duke Lacrosse case.

Unfortunately, the law in North Carolina is all too often used unjustly and punitively by police, prosecutors, and courts to exact revenge from individuals who are currently being charged and treated based upon past acts and not based upon merits alone of the case at hand. The Durham City and County should be ashamed of its involvement in the despicable, selective, and unjust actions against Ms. Mangum. Furthermore, it should be embarrassed for carrying out the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda… an agenda which starkly runs against the city’s own best interests.

As far as the media goes, I must at least give the News & Observer a few points for writing an article, even though it was very effectively concealed and not splashed over the front pages of the local section as was the news of Ms. Mangum’s arrest two months earlier. I was unaware of any of the other local mainstream media outlets that reported on Ms. Mangum’s arrest, doing a follow-up story about the grand jury indictment. This kind of reporting (picking and choosing which of the stories related to a case to promote and which ones to bury) is not uncommonly used by the biased media.

The N & O’s extreme bias is evident by the article’s final paragraph which reads: “Mangum never faced any charges for falsely accusing the three former Duke lacrosse players.” Now although I do not concede that the charges made by Ms. Mangum in the Duke Lacrosse case investigation were false, the article’s final statement suggests that individuals who make false statements are routinely charged for it. I believe that the News & Observer would be hard pressed to find an instance in North Carolina where an alleged rape victim was charged with making false accusations during the investigation of a criminal complaint.

93 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sid -- Took about 30 seconds to find:

http://foundinnocent.org/rape/local-woman-accused-of-filing-false-rape-report-cherokee-scout-subscription/

I'm sure a more substantial search would yield more results.

Also -- As the N&O article clearly states, it is not clear whether the other charges were dropped, and they may be considered later.

So, yet more Sid Harr statements found to be false...We should really try to keep score.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

nifong had the three innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players indicted for and charged with first degree rape - that is RAPE, not sexual assault.

The forensic evidence indicated no rape had happened. The forensic evidence exonerated the Lacrosse players by nifong's own standard of exoneration. nifong had no witnesses. So, although he had no probable cause to believe a crime had happened, he manufactured a connection between the three innocent Lacrosse players so he could have them indicted and charged.

Compared to the arrest of cgm, nifong's conduct was far more egregious. You condemn the city of durham. You defend nifong'sfar more egregious "unfair and inappropriate use of filing punitive charges" against three innocent, falsely accused men.

For what did he use those "unfair and inappropriate...punitive charges"? He wanted to curry favor with Durham's racist black leaders. He wanted them to get durham's black electorate to vote for him. Otherwise he would have lost the primary election and ultimately his job.

Why do you hate innocent, falsely accused men? Why do you defend the corrupt prosecutor who persecuted them?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"It is of interest to note" that, before any indictments were handed down, nifong publicly proclaimed that a rape had happened.

"It is of interest to note" that when the forensic evidence quite clearly exonerated the Duke Lacrosse team, nifong declared he could prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt without forensic evidence, using the medical record and the victim's word.

"It is of interest to note" that nifong neglected to interview cgm for 9 months. "It is [also]of interest to note" that when nifong finally got around to having her interviewed, he found he could not rely on her word to prove rape.

Finally, "[i]t is of interest to note" that crazy sidney calls it a sign of nifong's "integrity" that it took him 9 months to find out he could not prove rape.

At the start of the case, nifong should have had enough "interest to note" he did not have a case against the innocent, falsely accused players. All he was interested in, however, was how he could win the election ans save his job.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why were charges filed against the innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players when there was nothing - that is nothing, zilch, nada - to indicate either that a crime had been committed or that any member was involved in that alleged crime?

You have never explained. In effect, all you have said is that you hate the Lacrosse players and wanted to see them imprisoned.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

How did nifong get the grand jury to hand down indictments against Reade Seligman, Colin Finnerty and David Evans when there was no evidence, either that the alleged crime had happened or that these innocent, falsely accused men had been involved.

The only way I can think that nifong could have pulled it off was that he had lies told to the Grand Jury.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why did nifong withhold from the three Defendants the information that the only DNA found on cgm did not match any Lacrosse player. It was exculpatory evidence. nifong intended to keep any and all exculpatory evidence out of the case.

Why did nifong lie about withholding exculpatory evidence? He probably believed he could get away with it, that no one would be able to decipher the raw data he gave to the Defense. Boy was he shocked!

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"I believe that the News & Observer would be hard pressed to find an instance in North Carolina where an alleged rape victim was charged with making false accusations during the investigation of a criminal complaint."

And it is a true miscarriage of justice that false accusers like cgm are not prosecuted, considering the amount of mayhem they generate.

However, in the cgm case, the mayhem happened because nifong needed some racially charged issue which would get him the black vote and win the election he was badly losing.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

The Brown Family and the Goldman Family successfully sued oj, who was found liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

If cgm does have a case against the Lacrosse players, why doesn't she file a civil suit. Wouldn't that force the opening of what you call the sealed case file and the release of whatever evidence nifong had to incriminate the Lacrosse players.

The answer is, cgm does not have a case against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, and all the trial lawyers in America know that.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"
It is of interest to note" that the "cash-strapped city of Durham" would never have had to spend so much defending itself if it had not cooperated, via its police department, in nifong's wrongful prosecution of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players. Would durham have needed lawyers, spent millions of dollars on legal bills, tried so desperately to avoid discovery, had its police department sided with justice instead of corruption.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"although I do not concede that the charges made by [cgm] in the Duke Lacrosse case investigation were false..."

What evidence do you have that shows the charges made by cgm were true?

Remember, the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players were indicted for and charged with first degree rape. The medical record says cgm described a rape in which multiple assailants not using condoms penetrated her and ejaculated on her.

Did the SBI crime lab of the rape kit show any evidence that this happened? No.

Was the DNA of any Duke Lacrosse player found on cgm's person. No.

Did any witnesses corroborate cgm's story? No.

What did Kim Pittman say in her post party 911 call? That she and her girlfriend had walked by the house on Buchanan Avenue and had been called n---er. Did she report a rape in that call? No.

Were cgm's identification of three men as her assailants reliable? No way.

So, tell us why was anyone charged and prosecuted for a crime?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Not many people are buying your belief that oj did not kill Nicole Brown or Ron Goldman.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Why did the nifong da office not seek a higher bond against michael jermaine burch whom, they had probable cause to believe, was a rapist? Had they done so, a second rape might not have happened.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"The Durham City and County should be ashamed of its involvement in the despicable, selective, and unjust actions against Ms. Mangum".

Had "The Durham City and County" been ashamed of its "despicable, selective, and unjust actions" against the innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players, the city would not have encountered all these recent legal expenses.

durham could have saved itself a lot of money had it admitted the obvious wrong, settled with the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, and instituted reforms.

Instead, durham has spent an awful lot of money trying to keep the facts of the case from coming out. durham does not want to defend itself. It wants to have the case dismissed so durham can hide from its wrongdoing.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Just how much money did durham spend in its nifong-led wrongful prosecution of three innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse Players?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

To put it another way, show us it was fair and just to prosecute the Duke Defendants.

To say that a crime might have occurred in spite of the lack of evidence is legally meaningless. To prosecute a crime, a prosecutor has to have probable cause to believe a crime did occur, not that a crime might have occurred.

If a crime might have occurred, a true minister of justice would have investigated further. If further investigation did not show that a crime had occurred, or that a crime did not occur, a true minister of justice would not have prosecuted. nifong prosecuted although nothing showed a crime had occurred, had in fact ruled out the alleged crime.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

What have the justice4nifobg gangsters done as of yet to help cgm post bond and get out of jail?

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

Sydney - Mr. Meehan, director of the DNA lab, did express concern about the sensitive information in reports which all of the lacrosse players who gave specimens were entitled to receive. In those reports, out of concern for privacy issues only, it is my understanding that Mr. Nifong suggested that Mr. Meehan follow procedures used by the State lab when making his report.

The 'privacy' dodge was and continues to be risible. All of the (white) players' names were already in the report. Neither Meehan nor Nifong were able to come up with an even vaguely plausible explanation regarding their 'privacy' concerns.

The only individuals who might have benefited from Meehan's and Nifong's deliberate exclusion of results were the other men whose DNA was the only DNA found on and in Crystal.

Nifong never pursued those leads, Sydney, so I have to ask you:

Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the 'Yes, I've Visited the Louvre of DNA' Club?

guiowen said...

I still don't understand why all of you J4N committee members don't help CGM. Surely among the bunch of you, you can get the money you need to bail her out.

Anonymous said...

Whatchoo,

You raise an interesting point. I have found it strange that Sidney believes that Crystal may have been attacked, but he supports a failure to investigate leads.

I wonder if he used his membership that night and is hiding his involvement. It is speculative, but there is as much evidence to support that theory as the theory that the jihad is behind Crystal's arrest.

He should have his DNA tested

kenhyderal said...

Is Crystal sill in jail, then . Is her bail still $250,000.00. In Canada a "domestic" incident like her's would have resulted in an overnight jail stay and perhaps a restraining order for her to have no futher contact with Walker. Eight weeks in jail without being brought into court and with an impossibly high bail seems, to an outside observer to be out of all proportion and a perversion of justice.

Walt said...

Now Syd, we've been through this and through this, yet you seem to repeat the same old falsehoods, like this one: "Then the Carpetbagger families of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants have the unmitigated gall to tell the media that they are not seeking $10 million for each of their sons out of greed, but they are doing it to improve the city of Durham’s criminal justice system. How?... by diverting moneys from services and salaries of the Durham Police department to pay lawyers’ fees in defending the city against their extortionistic lawsuits?"

Syd, you just do a disservice to the cause of justice when you speak false. So, let's go over it again. Durham enjoys immunity from tort liability, except to the extent to which it has purchased liability insurance. NCGSA § 160A-485. Durham has purchased liability insurance. So, the only exposure that exists is to the limits of liability for the policy in place. In this case, a total of $5,000,000, less a $500,000 deductible. Thus, Durham's limit of exposure in this case, all these cases is $500,000, not millions.

Now the money that Durham is paying to lawyers is not going to defend the liability claim. A part of Durham's liability policy obligates the insurer to pay those sums. Indeed, under the terms of the liability policy, the insurer has both the duty to defend and control over that defense. Durham's insurer, AIG, is paying its own law firm to handle Durham's defense on the damages issue. What Durham is diverting money to attorneys is to defend against the innocent players demand that an overseer be put in place to prevent a future hoax like situation.

If you believe, as you claim, that Crystal Mangum is being mistreated by the DPD and or Durham County District Attorney, then you should be fully supporting the innocent players demand for an overseer.

Walt-in-Durham

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"[cgm] was excessively punished by Durham police, prosecutors, and judges because of her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. This is no secret… everyone knows it to be the truth"

Who besides yourself and your justice4nifong gangsters believe this to be the truth? Show us the credible evidence. You have condemned prosecutors(with the notable exception of nifong) who have gone forward with prosecutions with no credible evidence.

How many people charged with crimes have cgm's previous criminal record - auto theft, attempting to run down an officer with the stolen auto. Does a prior criminal history affect a judge's decision on how high to set bail?

And why have you justice4nifong gangsters done nothing to secure cgm's release? If you are doing nothing, aren't you cooperating with the durham pd? Could it be you really don't want her released? Why would you not do something substantial to get her released? If you put up her bail, would that not be manning up to this alleged carpetbagger jihad?

Walt said...

"Crystal Mangum: victimized by Carpetbagger Jihad justice and the media"

Crystal, like all criminal defendants is entitled to the presumption of innocence. But, the record is clear that the only people involved in her apartment fire were her, her boyfriend and her children. If there are victims in this sad sordid tale, it's her children.

Syd and the committee are in lock step with Nifong on this one. They care not one whit for any of Crystal's victims. And, they don't really care much about Crystal either. Syd and the committee are perfectly happy to continue abusing her like Nifong did. He used her in his election plot. Nifong so fouled up the investigation that if Crystal was assaulted, he assured that the guilty party or parties went free. Syd and the committee excuse Crystal's bad behavior that harms her and her children.

Walt-in-Durham

public urination said...

I believe the reasons for all the original charges compared to what the Grand Jury returned are worth looking into. I don't know that it was to punish Crystal or not but it does seem that she may have been overcharged considerably for whatever reason. It is interesting that you get all these off topic comments by those interested in fairness for a few Lacrosse players but in turn show no interest in a presumption of innocence and fairness for Crystal.

It is the same system of justice is it not? It is almost a celebration going on that she may be a victim of unfair prosecution. Unlike those hooligans she has already spent a considerable amount of time in jail and now has a very unreasonable bond based on these new charges. Nor does she have the funds available to hire an expensive legal team and post bail.

I see a bit of selective indignation here or possibly a need for revenge overcoming the search for the truth.

unbekannte said...

public pp:

Why do you refer to the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players as "hooligans"? Have you ever read any of the accounts of the case. There was absolutely no evidence that the crime cgm alleged ever happened.

Are you saying no one should have looked into what nifong was doing early on in the phony rape case? Compared to what has happened to cgm, what happened to the innocent, falsely accused Duke defendants was far more egregious. nifong not only ignored the presumption of innocence, he ignored their right to be represented by counsel, their right to remain silent. He withheld exculpatory evidence from them. He had arrested an individual who could support the alibi of one of the accused. The fact that no Lacrosse player ever spent time in jail is irrelevant. Innocent people should not be imprisoned, especially people as obviously innocent as the Duke Defendants.

As Walt has implied(April 8, 2010 8:21 PM), none of this might have happened, had durham admitted liability and instituted reforms demanded by the Lacrosse players who were wrongfully persecuted.

"...she [does not] have the funds available to hire an expensive legal team and post bail."

Why aren't all the pot bangers and gang of 88ers banding together to get her representation, to post her bail?

Why isn't someone like wicked wendy murphy not offering to represent her pro bono?

What is the North Carolina NAACP(who declared the Lacrosse players guilty) doing for her?

What is irving joyner doing for her?

What are the justice4nifong gangsters doing for her?

What is nifong doing for her(nothing, which is hardly surprising considering how he treated her during the Lacrosse hoax)?

What are jesse jackson or al sharpton doing for her now?

Maybe cgm was not rational at the time of the rape hoax. However, had she just admitted she had never been raped, none of the rape hoax injustice would have happened.

unbekannte said...

more for public pp'er:

Tell us why there was no indignation over nifong's total disregard for the truth in the phony rape hoax, his attempts to conceal the truth and convict three innocent men just because it would win him the election?

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

more for the public pp'er:

Has any da proclaimed in public that cgm is guilty. nifong publicly proclaimed the guilt of the Duke Lacrosse team.

Has the durham pd published a quasi-wanted poster with cgm's picture? The durham pd published such a poster with the pictures of the Lacrosse team.

Has any group publicly paraded and demanded cgm be found guilty? The new black panthers demanded the Lacrosse Defendants be found guilty.

Has anyone withheld exculpatory evidence from cgm? nifong withheld exculpaidence from the Duke defendants and then lied to the court.

Is there selective indignation here? Absolutely. The illegality and unconstitutionality of the prosecution of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players was far more egregious than what has happened to cgm. But you and crazy sidney and the justice4nifong gangsters showed no indignation

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

kenhyderal - Eight weeks in jail without being brought into court and with an impossibly high bail seems, to an outside observer to be out of all proportion and a perversion of justice.

kenhyderal, Crystal's charges include felony arson, so this isn't just a "domestic" incident as you suggest. The arson was also one of the charges receiving a true bill from the grand jury.

She hasn't had 'Eight weeks in jail without being brought into court', either; she has had at least 3 hearings scheduled, some of which have been continued at defense request or at least agreement. Crystal appears to be content to stay in jail until at least the next hearing, hoping to get the felony arson reduced to a misd and get time served.

Back to the eight weeks - in NC, the DA is in charge of the docket, not the court, so there is plenty of opportunity for abuse of the syatem by the DA. Her time in thus far is just par for the course in the banana republic of Durham, NC.

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

public urination - I believe the reasons for all the original charges compared to what the Grand Jury returned are worth looking into.

The DPD charged Crystal with what infractions they witnessed, or had good reason to believe that she had committed. The GJ returned what the DA chose to present, and only those.

There is nothing untoward or nefarious in the reduction of charges, although it does look like the DA's office wishes that this case would just disappear. However, the change from 3 counts of child abuse (endangerment) to 3 of contributing is a bit odd. Crystal set at least one fire in the house that her children were in, and definitely endangered them.

guiowen said...

Could it be that the Durham authorities consider CGM a loose cannon and want to keep her out of the way as much as possible? More of these crazy acts could hurt the city's defense. Moreover, she's liable to talk about whatever happened in her conversations with the police back in 2006. By locking her up they avoid all this.

underage drinking said...

unbekannte said, Is there selective indignation here? Absolutely."

Many thanks for confirming that. The calls for CGM's guilt and punishment are coming from the supporter's of those beautiful angels. There is no presumption of innocence or search for the truth. It doesn't matter to your tribe if she is guilty of these charges or not as long as she suffers. If the Durham LE screwed up this time it's of no concern because it is Crystal after all. You have no interest in what is right or wrong about Crystal's case, it is payback you want.

guiowen said...

No one is trying to punish CGM. Most of us don't care one way or another. We've already seen she's crazy, which is what matters as far as the lacrosse case is concerned.
Now, if Sidney, or else you guys who enjoy urinating in public or giving drinks to minors (though why you should boast about it is beyond me) want to get her out of jail, all you have to do is put up the bail money. There's at least a dozen of you, and surely you can come up with $20,833.33 each.

guiowen said...

Incidentally, don't expect the 88'ers to come up with any of the bail money. We college professors (I've been one for 49 years) are easily riled, but never to the point of actually giving money to the cause.

kenhyderal said...

Setting fire to a bunch of clothes in a bathtub hardly seems like "felony arson". Just imagine how Crystal's kids feel. They called 911 because they thought their Mom was being beaten-up; only to have her taken away from them and jailed for two months.

guiowen said...

Kenhyderal,
Why don't you help with the bail money? Put your money where your mouth is!

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

kenhyderal - Setting fire to a bunch of clothes in a bathtub hardly seems like "felony arson".

That's exactly what it is, kenhyderal. The felony part comes from having others, including her children, in the house when she did so. Perhaps you recall when 50 Cent's Long Island house burned to the ground when his ex- set fire to some of his tennis shoes in a tub?

Just imagine how Crystal's kids feel. They called 911 because they thought their Mom was being beaten-up; only to have her taken away from them and jailed for two months.

The kids are no doubt terrified of their mom and her irrational behavior. Crystal beaten up? There has been no indication that mighty Milton laid a hand on her. Her mugshots certainly show no evidence of that.

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

drinking public urination - The calls for CGM's guilt and punishment are coming from the supporter's of those beautiful angels.

What calls? I haven't seen any.

She keeps agreeing to continuances; it's about time that she allows the PC hearing to occur so we can see what evidence the LE/DA has, don't you think?

As for punishment, Crystal will probably end up with time served after the Durham DA allows her to skate once again.

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

drinking public urination - The calls for CGM's guilt and punishment are coming from the supporter's of those beautiful angels.

What calls? I haven't seen any.

She keeps agreeing to continuances; it's about time that she allows the PC hearing to occur so we can see what evidence the LE/DA has, don't you think?

As for punishment, Crystal will probably end up with time served after the Durham DA allows her to skate once again.

unbekannte said...

for the public drunk:

Demonstrate how nifomg presumed innocence when the innocent Duke Lacrosse players were falsely accused of rape.

I say again, no one is calling cgm guilty, no one is questioning the presumption of innocence. No one is doing anything close to the way nifong treated the Duke Lacrosse players.

Where was your indignation then?

unbekannte said...

for kenwhatever:

Wanting to win an election is hardly an excuse for charging innocent individuals with a felony.

unbekannte said...

more for the underage drunk public pp'er:

It really didn't matter to nifong, to the potbangers, to the pathetic namesake of brod dickhead, to the police of durham, or to you for that matter that the innocent Duke Lacrosse players were innocent, that no crime happened in the first place. It seems it still doesn't.

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

even more for the underage drunk public pp'er:

Who is calling for cgm's punishment. Certainly not david addison, the dpd officer responsible for the wanted poster.

Who is now trying to help her now? Not you, not crazy etc. sidney, not vinc(ious)ent clark, not nifong, not vic(ious)toria peterson, not the nc naacp.

If you are so concerned about cgm, put up her bail, get her legal representation, get her back to her kids.

All you do is vilify the innocent men she falsely accused. How does that help her?

April 10, 2010 3:15 AM

Edited April 10, 2010 to correct typo

unbekannte said...

yet even more for the underage drunk pp'er:

Quote someone who has specifically called for cgm's punishment, the way nifong called for the punishment of three innocent, falsely accused men.

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"Good afternoon, everyone.

On Jan. 13 of this year, I accepted the request of the Durham district attorney to take over three Durham cases. At the time, I promised a fresh and thorough review of the facts and a decision on the best way to proceed. I also said that we would have our eyes wide open to the evidence, but that we would have blinders on for all other distractions. We've done all of these things.

During the past 12 weeks, our lawyers and investigators have reviewed the remaining allegations of sexual assault and kidnapping that resulted from a party on March 13, 2006, in Durham, N.C.

We have carefully reviewed the evidence collected by the Durham County prosecutor's office and the Durham Police Department. We have also conducted our own interviews and evidence gathering. Our attorneys and SBI (State Bureau of Investigation) agents have interviewed numerous people who were at the party, DNA and other experts, the Durham County district attorney, Durham police officers, defense attorneys and the accusing witness on several occasions. We have reviewed statements given over the past year, photographs, records and other evidence.

The result of our review and investigation shows clearly that there is insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges. Today we are filing notices of dismissal for all charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans.

The result is that these cases are over, and no more criminal proceedings will occur.

We believe that these cases were the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations. Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.

We approached this case with the understanding that rape and sexual assault victims often have some inconsistencies in their accounts of a traumatic event. However, in this case, the inconsistencies were so significant and so contrary to the evidence that we have no credible evidence that an attack occurred in that house that night.

The prosecuting witness in this case responded to questions and offered information. She did want to move forward with the prosecution.

However, 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.

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. Next week, we'll be providing a written summary of the important factual findings and some of the specific contradictions that have led us to the conclusion that no attack occurred.

In this case, with the weight of the state behind him, the Durham district attorney pushed forward unchecked. There were many points in the case where caution would have served justice better than bravado. And in the rush to condemn, a community and a state lost the ability to see clearly. Regardless of the reasons this case was pushed forward, the result was wrong. Today, we need to learn from this and keep it from happening again to anybody."

This is part of the text of Attorney General Roy Cooper's statement on April 11, 2007

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

"Now, we have good district attorneys in North Carolina who are both tough and fair. And we need these forceful, independent prosecutors to put criminals away and protect the public. But we also need checks and balances to protect the innocent. This case shows the enormous consequences of overreaching by a prosecutor. What has been learned here is that the internal checks on a criminal charge — sworn statements, reasonable grounds, proper suspect photo lineups, accurate and fair discovery — all are critically important.

Therefore, I propose a law that the North Carolina Supreme Court have the authority to remove a case from a prosecutor in limited circumstances. This would give the courts a new tool to deal with a prosecutor who needs to step away from a case where justice demands.

I want to thank everyone in the North Carolina Department of Justice. I want to thank our investigators, our SBI agents and especially attorneys Jim Coman and Mary Winstead for their hard work in this matter.

I'll take some of your questions now."

This is the rest of Mr. Cooper's statement. Where in this statement did Mr. Cooper call nifong a rogue prosecutor?

unbekannte said...

for the underage drunk public pp'er:

According to houston baker(who called the Lacrosse players "farm animals"), Lacrosse team members were cited for 15 alcohol related misdemeanors over a period of 3 years. According to the Coleman committee(set up by brod dickhead's pathetic namesake to investigate the Lacrosse team), most of these were open container violations. Professor James Coleman reported the team had an overall record of good, polite behavior.

Have you ever looked at the Coleman committe report?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

Fron the Johnsville News: "According to court warrants, Mangum attacked Walker by "scratching, punching, and throwing objects at the victim," who was not arrested. She also threatened, "I'm gonna stab you motherf**ker." Firemen were called to extinguish the bathroom blaze while Mangum, Walker, and three children were evacuated from their home.

It sounds like cgm attempted to do more than scratch her boyfriend.

Do you consider it minor that firemen had to be called to extinguish the blaze cfm started?

unbekannte said...

more for the underage drunk public pp'er:

You consider allegations about the Lacrosse team significant. From the Johnsville News, here is cgm's pre rape hoax record. Should these be considered significant:

"Ms. Mangum was arrested in June 2002 after she got drunk, stole a car at a strip club, and lead police on a reckless high-speed chase. This incident resulted in the following charges:


* Felonious Assault with a Deadly Weapon on Police Officer, O2-CRS-49961

* Felonious Larceny and Felonious Possession of Stolen Vehicle charges, 02-CRS-49955

* Felonious Speeding to Elude Arrest, Driving while Impaired (.19 Blood Alcohol Content) and Driving while License Revoked, 02-CRS-49956

* Driving Left of Center, 02-CR-49958

* Failure to Heed Blue Light and Siren and Reckless Driving in Wanton Disregard to Rights or Safety of Others, 02-CR-49959

* Driving the Wrong Way on Dual Lane Highway and Open Container After Consuming Alcohol, 02-CR-49960

* two counts of Injury to Personal Property, 02-CR-49962-63

* Resisting a Public Officer, 02-CR-49964"

Is this the record of an angel?

cgm was allowed to plead guilty to 4 misdemeanor charges.

Do you think nifong intended to show any such leniency to the innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players, even though he had no evidence they had committed any crime?

unbekannte said...

for keenhywhatsisname:

Does calling in the Fire Department to extinguish a fire indicate the fire was minor?

unbekannte said...

more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:

From Mr. Cooper's statement on April 11, 2007: "We have carefully reviewed the evidence collected by the Durham County prosecutor's office and the Durham Police Department. We have also conducted our own interviews and evidence gathering."

By your own admission, you have never reviewed the evidence. So, "Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Sydney?"

Acknowledgment to Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Sydney?

missing money said...

Coleman:

"Firstly, we reject the characterization put forward by critics like Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson that the Lacrosse Committee report, that examined the past behavior of the lacrosse team, is a “stunning vindication” of the team (Washington Post, September 7, 2007). On the contrary, the report very carefully details a pattern of behavior that the committee characterized as “socially irresponsible” that should “have been a cause for alarm.” Dismissing this finding as trivial is a biased and unjustified misrepresentation of the facts."

unbekannte said...

for missing money:

How about you tell us who wrote that quote.

Describe for us the socially irresponsible pattern of behavior.

Even today, in spite of all the evidence that no crime happened, people still condemn the Lacrosse team. No one condemns nifong for filing baseless charges against three members of the team just so he could curry favor with the black electorate.

Tell us, do you think cgm's pattern of behavior pre phony rape case was socially responsible? Her history of inappropriate behavior and thuggishness was far more egregious than that of any Lacrosse team member.

unbekannte said...

For missing money:

This is from the ad hoc committee which investigated the Lacrosse team:

* 0.75 % (47/6244) Duke undergraduate students were lacrosse players in the Fall of 2005.
* 4% of the students listed in the chart were LAX players (8/201)
* 4% of the adjudicated students were LAX players (8/188)
* 4% of the administrative resolution cases were LAX players (8/187)
* 4% of total charges-responsible were LAX players (5/126)
* 2% of total alcohol policy cases were LAX players (2/187)
* 2% of underage possession cases were LAX players (2/92)
* 25% of the disorderly conduct cases were LAX players (1/4)
* 40% of the Other cases were Lax players (2/5)
* 50% of the noise ordinance cases were LAX players (1/2)
* 33% of the open container cases were LAX players (1//3)
* 4% of sanctions involved LAX players (6/138)
* 5% of warnings involved LAX players (5/106)
* 6% of written assignments involved LAX players (1/17)
* 5% of the Total charges-not responsible were LAX players
* 5% of cases involving alcohol policy were LAX players (4/75)
* 2% of alcohol-underage cases were LAX players (4/75)
* 21% of alcohol-unsafe behavior were LAX players (3/14)

Considering the size of the Duke student body, these fndings would never have met the standard of statistical significance.

Did any member of the committee test these results for statistical significance? It is an estimate of the probability the results just happened. To be statistically significant, the chance of a result just happening would have to be 5% or less. If the probability were 50% or greater that the results just happened, then they are meaningless, except to those who want to hang Lacrosse team members.

The Washington Post is entitled to its opinion. However, people like farm animal Houston Baker described them as out of control neanderthals. The report showed that was an exaggeration. From KC Johnson's Durham in WOnderland:

"The report makes clear the disturbing pattern both of increased excessive alcohol use by team members and team members’ disproportionate violation of college alcohol policy. But the document also condemns the administration for insufficient oversight in general and poor communication with the (ex-) lacrosse coach in particular; and contextualizes the issue by noting a more general problem of all Duke students ignoring the college’s alcohol policy, which the report calls “arbitrary and often ineffective.” And other aspects of the report portray the players as about as far from Nifong’s “hooligans” as imaginable. The team members are warmly praised for their courtesy to athletic staff, their good relationship with the women’s lacrosse team, and their record of volunteer service in the community; the report found no evidence that “the cohesiveness of this group is either sexist or racist.” None of this material excuses the (admitted) actions on the night in question, but it certainly calls into question allegations, like that of Duke professor Houston Baker, that these actions typified the team’s behavior"

unbekannte said...

more for missing money:

This is also from KC Johnson(Cliopatria). He is quoting Professor Coleman on the prosecution of the Lacrosse players:

"Coleman singled out for criticism the highly irregular photo ID session (which, according to a recent defense motion, was actually one of between three and six ID sessions, all of which were confined to photos of the lacrosse team, violating the guidelines of NC’s Actual Innocence Commission, which calls for at least seven “filler” photos for every suspect). The session began with the officer in charge of the case (also violating commission guidelines, which call for an uninvolved law enforcement officer to preside over eyewitness IDs) telling the accuser that the photo array contained photos of people who were at the lacrosse party. As Coleman noted, "The officer was telling the witness that all are suspects, and say[ing], in effect, 'Pick three.’ It's so wrong; it had to be done for a reason other than identification."

unbekannte said...

more for missing money:

This also comes from KC Johnsons blog post on Cliopatria. I looked for the letter but the link to it is dead. It shows better than any Washington Post editorial what Professor Coleman was thinking about the prosecution.

"Coleman supplemented his interview with a searing letter to the editor. After beginning with the charge that "up to now, virtually everything that Nifong has done has undermined public confidence in the case," he contends that, after having reviewed the photo ID transcript, it seems to him "that the purpose of the identification process was to give the alleged victim an opportunity to pick three members of the lacrosse team who could be charged. Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice. The prosecutor would not care if the pre-trial identification was subsequently thrown out by the court. The accuser would identify them at trial by pointing to the three defendants seated in front of her as the three men who assaulted her. The prosecutor would argue that she had an independent basis (independent of the identifications thrown out) for doing so. Whatever the truth is, Nifong can no longer personally restore public confidence in the prosecution of this case. Someone with professional detachment and unquestioned integrity must review the case and determine whether the evidence against the three students warrants further prosecution. That would serve the best interest of the alleged victim, the three defendants and public."

unbekannte said...

more for missing money:

This comes from CBS' The Early Show's interview of Professor Coleman on April 12, 2010:

"(CBS/AP) All charges, including rape, were dropped against the three Duke University lacrosse players — David Evans, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty — on Wednesday.

After a thorough investigation, the North Carolina attorney general found that there was a "tragic rush to accuse" and the players were absolutely innocent.

"There were many points in the case where caution would have served justice better than bravado," North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said in a damning assessment of Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong's handling of the sensational, racially charged case. "In the rush to condemn, a community and a state lost the ability to see clearly."

Cooper, who took over the case in January after Nifong was charged with ethics violations that could get him disbarred, said his own investigation "led us to the conclusion that no attack occurred."

Duke University law professor James Coleman was suspicious from the beginning.

"The D.A. said the students refused to cooperate, they wouldn't talk to the police and I knew that wasn't true," he told The Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith. "That's when I knew he was trying to build a case against these students."

Coleman was on a committee appointed to investigate rumors about the accused players and the men's lacrosse team and said that the circumstances surrounding the case ended up being "something of a perfect storm.""

unbekannte said...

more for missing money:

The is the rest of the interview with Professor Coleman:
"
"It had all kind of elements, but we know now it was based on this false notion a crime had been committed," he said. "That generated everything. That gave energy to everything."

The story, as it was portrayed in the media, was about class and race in a community surrounding an elite university (Duke is called the Harvard of the South). The three accused represented — at least in the eyes of their critics — the privileged white students many felt were running wild on campus. But in the end, none of it was true, Coleman said.

"It got reported that way over and over, and then it became fact," he said. "You know, it took a year for the truth to catch up."

District Attorney Mike Nifong, Coleman said, was initially motivated by the belief that a crime had occurred but also saw it as an opportunity for him to gain fame and notoriety.

"He was in a political race," Coleman said. "You know, he rushed to judgment. I think the attorney general said it properly, he rush to judgment."

During the past year, there have been several stories about race and sports, including the recent debacle with radio host Don Imus and comments he made about the Rutgers women's basketball team. Coleman says they are all related.

"I think what's happening is that athletes are treated like disposable items," he said. "We forget they are human beings, students and have feelings, and we just ignore that. They are treated like commodities."

Note, the notion that a crime had been committed was a "FALSE" notion.

Grampa's cotton shirt said...

unbekannte said...

"for missing money:

How about you tell us who wrote that quote."


That was written by James Coleman, Professor of the Practice of Law, Duke School of Law and Prasad Khasibatla, Associate Professor, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences.

I would think Professor Coleman would be the expert on how to characterize his own committee's report.

unbekannte said...

more for missing money:

The New York Times on the Coleman Report: "We also know, as the Coleman report makes clear, that the members of the lacrosse team drank heavily, and when they did, they behaved irresponsibly. Of the 14 cases of "alcohol-unsafe" behavior reported at Duke in the fall of 2005, three involved lacrosse players. Of the four

reported cases of disorderly conduct, one involved a lacrosse player.

Team members were caught playing drinking games, publicly urinating and hitting golf balls at buildings. The report notes that their behavior was alarming and deplorable, but adds: "Their conduct has not been different in character than the conduct of the typical Duke student who abuses alcohol. Their reported conduct has not involved fighting, sexual assault or harassment, or racist behavior."

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: May 28, 2006

unbekannte said...

more for missing money:

This is more of the ARticle by By DAVID BROOKS in the New York Times Published: May 28, 2006:

" We know now that the Duke lacrosse players are not the dumb jocks they were portrayed to be. The team has a 100 percent graduation rate. Over the past five years 146 members of the team made the Atlantic Coast Conference Academic Honor Roll, twice as many as any other A.C.C. lacrosse team. According to the faculty report written by the law professor James E. Coleman and others — which stands out as the one carefully researched and intellectually honest piece of work in this whole mess — "The lacrosse team's academic performance generally is one of the best among all Duke athletic teams."

We also know that the lacrosse players are not the amoral goons of popular legend. The members of the Coleman commission interviewed many of the people the players came into contact with and found almost universal praise and admiration. The groundskeeper and the equipment manager described the current team as among the best groups of young men they have worked with during their long tenures at Duke.

"The committee has not heard evidence that the cohesiveness of this group is either racist or sexist," the Coleman report says. The current and former black members of the team are "extremely positive" about the support they received. The coach of the women's lacrosse team says relations between the men and women are respectful and supportive. "They are great kids," she has said of the male players.

The male lacrosse players "volunteered for numerous community service activities," the report says, including reading programs, mentoring programs, the Special Olympics and Katrina relief."

broomstick said...

I would not consider David Brooks to be more of an expert on the Coleman Committee's report than Professor Coleman. And certainly not Professor Johnson. All you get through those rose colored glasses are visions of angel's wings.

kenhyderal said...

Kenhyderal,
Why don't you help with the bail money? Put your money where your mouth is!

I'm not an American and I live in Dubai. I'm not eilgible to post a bail bond.

kenhyderal said...

Does calling in the Fire Department to extinguish a fire indicate the fire was minor?
Who called them? The cops, perhaps? Why didn't they just turn on the faucet?

kenhyderal said...

The kids are no doubt terrified of their mom and her irrational behavior. Crystal beaten up? There has been no indication that mighty Milton laid a hand on her. Her mugshots certainly show no evidence of that.
On the 911 call the child shows genuine fear and concern for her Mom's wellbeing.

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

kenhyderal -On the 911 call the child shows genuine fear and concern for her Mom's wellbeing.

It seemed so, but that fear was not born of anyone's behavior that night other than Crystal's own. You made up that "called 911 because they thought their Mom was being beaten-up" out of whole cloth.

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

kenhyderal -Who called them? The cops, perhaps? Why didn't they just turn on the faucet?

According to the report, the police called the fire dept. Why do you assume that the resulting fire was so small that 'turning on the faucet' would have been sufficient?

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal,
I believe you can wire your $20,833.33 to Sidney. He is clearly interested in getting CGM out of jail. Have you done so yet?

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

kenhywhatzisname:

I wouldn't wire any money to crazy etc. sidney. He would use the money either to produce more justice4nifong banners or to buy more cartooning supplies.

unbekannte said...

for the poverty stricken, underage public pp'er imaginary broomstick lover:

What you quoted:

"unbekannte said, Is there selective indignation here? Absolutely."

What I said:

"Is there selective indignation here? Absolutely. The illegality and unconstitutionality of the prosecution of the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players was far more egregious than what has happened to cgm. But you and crazy sidney and the justice4nifong gangsters showed no indignation"

Just like crazy etc. sidney and just like nifong, you lie by distorting the facts.

unbekannte said...

for kenhywhatsisname:

The police reported they found cgm assaulting her boyfriend, not only scratching him but kicking him and throwing objects at him.

That cgm's mugshot shows no injuries would indicate her boyfriend was defending, not attacking.

If the police calling the fire department was not cation of a dangerous fire, then what was it?

unbekannte said...

more for kenhywhatsisname:

Did you ever think the fire was big enough that no one could get to the faucet?

unbekannte said...

more for limp dick cotton shirt public drunk underage pp'er phony droomstick lover:

The Coleman report did state many positive things about the Lacrosse team. Do you deny that? Was that Professor Coleman looking at the situation through rose colored glasses?

Professor Coleman's report also said the problems observed with the Lacrosse team were not especially unique to the Lacrosse team but observed throughout the Duke University student body.

You still could try to explain how why you think the Coleman report showed the Lacrosse team as wild, out of control hooligans.

Your problem is, like crazy etc. sidney, the pot bangers, the gangof88'ers, you suffer from a recto-ocular fistula. It gives you a crappy view of things.

unbekannte said...

more for limp dick cotton shirt etc.

Isn't making cgm out to be an angel while dismissing her significant criminal history(much more egregious than anything perpetrated by any Lacrosse Player) looking at her with rose colored glasses?

unbekannte said...

more for limp dick cotton shirt etc.

Why should cgm get a pass for not once but twice in her life falsely accusing innocent men of gang raping her?

unbekannte said...

more for limp dick cotton shirt etc.

Why do you consider yourself an authority on the phony Duke rape case? You show yourself as knowledgeable as crazy etc. sidney.

defy team rules/got coach fired said...

unbekannte said...

"more for limp dick cotton shirt etc.

Why do you consider yourself an authority on the phony Duke rape case?"


I didn't say that. You are the one distorting things here. I said that Coleman was the expert on his own committee's report. Not Brooks, not Johnson, and certainly not unbekannte. You seem to think that the Lacrosse boys had it worse than Crystal yet they spent no time in jail, had no problem meeting bail, and had an army of lawyers feeding the media any negative information on Crystal they could possibly dig up. It appears Crystal may be even more of a victim of the Durham police department than those perfect young men with little sticks. Were they charged with attempted murder by broomstick? All indications are that this was a minor domestic dispute and CGM has been set up for her perceived sins of the past.

Walt said...

Public urination said: "Unlike those hooligans she has already spent a considerable amount of time in jail..."

Even if they were hooligans, and they were not, does that justify charging them with rape or sexual assault when there is no evidence?

"... and now has a very unreasonable bond based on these new charges."

Unreasonable? How does this compare with other DV bonds?

"Nor does she have the funds available to hire an expensive legal team and post bail."

Interesting. The state has almost unlimited funds to hire a legal team, not to mention the SBI and private labs to work up a hoax and you don't complain about it. Another double standard from Syd's crew.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt said...

defy team rules/, you wrote: "You seem to think that the Lacrosse boys had it worse than Crystal yet they spent no time in jail,..."

People who are completely innocent should spend time in jail? Why?

"...had no problem meeting bail,..."

The purpose of bail is to assure that defendants will appear at trial. Crystal's bail is only $25,000 cash or surety of $250,000. Under Durham's bail schedule that is what anyone charged with this sort of DV would be admitted to bail. She's certainly not being singled out. Contrast the innocent men in the hoax who saw their bail set higher than the schedule.

"... and had an army of lawyers feeding the media any negative information on Crystal they could possibly dig up."

I always find it interesting that Nifong lying about the lacrosse players, Addison lying about no one cooperating, the N&O publishing unsupported claims about police reports is acceptable to you. But, it must be another example of the double standard at work. I guess it's like Syd excusing Nifong for pursuing a prosecution without credible evidence while pillorying Tom Ford for the same thing.

"All indications are that this was a minor domestic dispute..."

Domestic violence is not minor. Not when you beat up someone, not when you set fire to their clothes, not when you endanger your children.

"... and CGM has been set up for her perceived sins of the past."

Perceived? Lying to the police? Fabricating a tale that saw three innocent men falsely charged? Stealing a taxi-cab? Trying to run over a police officer? None of these acts would justify false charges in this case, but it's clear that Crystal's sins go beyond perception into reality.

Walt-in-Durham

guiowen said...

I still can't understand what Sidney is trying to do with this post. Why doesn't he actually try to get bail for CGM? After all, this money would be returned once she appears for trial.
Of course it may be that Sidney just wants to be able to complain about NC justice, in which case it helps him to have CGM in jail. That this makes the authorities in the "cash-strapped city" (who were Nifong's allies back in 2006) look bad seems not to occur to him.
Of ourse Sidney, and his friends who urinate in public while weazring their cotton shirt, may have an explanation.

Nifong Supporter said...

To kenhyderal:

Thank you for you insightful and informative comments about the unfairness of Crystal Mangum's treatment by the state. I believe that the model Canada has in dealing with such issues is far more humane and just than that of North Carolina. Even for the state of North Carolina, her sentencing and bail is excessive when considered among individuals not connected with the Duke Lacrosse case.

I look forward to future comments from you.

Nifong Supporter said...

To Anonymous:

I am aware that the N&O article stated that it was not clear whether other charges were dropped, or whether they might be considered later. I would suggest that the reporter ask the Durham Prosecutor directly whether the other charges were dropped or if they would be considered later. The prosecutor has had the case for a couple of months now, and any shred of competence would indicate that she would know by now how to proceed.

Don't count on any more charges being brought against Ms. Mangum. The prosecutors should be ashamed of the charges they obtained through the grand jury. And they went through the grand jury process in order to decrease embarrassment that they would endure with a hearing in open court.

Nifong Supporter said...

To Public urination:

Thank you for your comments which I believe are right on target. This is obviously a matter of payback against Crystal Mangum for the accusation she made in the Duke Lacrosse case. It's all about revenge.

Nifong Supporter said...

To Public urination:

Thank you for your comments which are right on target. Bottom line is that this is all about payback for Crystal Mangum for her accusations in the Duke Lacrosse case. Looking for the truth or justice is not even a consideration. It's all about revenge.

We welcome your future contributions.

Nifong Supporter said...

To Missing money:

Thank you for providing the quote by Duke University law professor James Coleman.

Nifong Supporter said...

To quiowen:

"I still don't understand why all of you J4N committee members don't help CGM. Surely among the bunch of you, you can get the money you need to bail her out."

Members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong are concerned and do want to help Ms. Mangum be released from jail. Rather than pay the exorbitant extortion demanded by the state of a quarter million dollars, we are trying to persuade the state to drop the ridiculous bail as Ms. Mangum is no flight risk, is not a danger to society, and her senseless incarceration is costing taxpayers money that could otherwise be spent more beneficially for the citizens of Durham.

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

Sydney -Rather than pay the exorbitant extortion demanded by the state of a quarter million dollars...

Yo, Sydney, the bond as set is secured, meaning that it will only be $25,000-30K to ya, a mere 10-12%, whatever the going rate is in Durham (and the bondsman's estimation of Crystal's risk to them).

Bear in mind that the bonds for the falsely-accused LAX players were cash bonds, meaning that they had to put up $400,000 cash each.

And enough with the 'million $$ bond' crap, it was lowered soon after she was jailed.


as Ms. Mangum is no flight risk

And you know this.... how?


is not a danger to society,

She set a frickin' fire in her own house, Sydney, while her children were in that house. Geez. It's amazing how little concern you have for that whore's children.

kenhyderal said...

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout Sydney wrote "You made up that "called 911 because they thought their Mom was being beaten-up" out of whole cloth".... I'd invite anyone interested to listen to the call themself and then decide if W.t.b.S.'s interpretation, or mine, is the most likely one.

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

Unbekannte Said: If the police calling the fire department was not cation of a dangerous fire, then what was it?
...... I take it you meand "indication"... It might be interesting to read The Durham Fire Department's report on this incident. I wonder if it will indicate pressing or potential danger to life.

Anonymous said...

As a first and last time reader, it's amazing that there are pepole so disconnected from truth and reality that they are busy defending Nifong and CGM. I don't think I have ever seen more words adn less truth in one place in my life.