Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Million dollar bail… A case comparison – Part 8

On Saturday evening, May 15, 2010, a 35 year old man, Johnny West, went to pick up his 11 year-old daughter from a house in Stedman, a city in Cumberland County. On their return trip home, they traveled through a neighborhood with children at play in what one man thought was at an excessive speed. He yelled at Johnny West to slow down. Angered by the rebuke, Mr. West arrived home, picked up a shotgun, and with two of his nephews joining him and his daughter, drove back to the neighborhood with the intention of confronting the man who had yelled at him. West shot at the man, who returned fire with a weapon of his own. Johnny West sustained a superficial wound to his arm, however his daughter was struck by a bullet in the abdomen. She was taken to the hospital where she is in critical condition after undergoing surgery to remove part of her stomach and her spleen.

Two days later, on Monday, May 17, 2010, police charged Johnny West with felony child abuse, three counts of assault with a deadly weapon, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and communicating threats. He was not charged with attempted first degree murder. His bail was set at $28,000, and he was released after the bond was satisfied. Also, on making bond, there was no condition that upon his release from Cumberland County Detention Center that he be placed under house arrest.

Crystal Mangum, on the other hand, allegedly scratched her ex-boyfriend and initiated a controlled burn using some of his clothing for kindling and was charged on arrest with felony first degree attempted murder, five counts of first degree arson, felony identity theft, communicating threats, assault and battery, three counts of child abuse, injury to personal property, and resisting, delaying, and obstructing a public officer. Magistrate B. Wakil set bail at $1 million. When Durham Assistant D.A. Angela Garcia-Lamarca went before the grand jury, she obtained indictments for one count of felony first degree arson, three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile, injury to personal property, and obstructing a public officer.

Later Ms. Mangum’s bail was reduced by Judge Claude Allen to $250,000, but with the condition that if she bonded out, she would be placed under house arrest. Weeks pass before Judge Ridgeway reduced the bail to $100,000, with conditions for house arrest still in place. On Saturday, May 15, 2010, members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong held a prayer vigil for Crystal’s release, and on Monday, May 17, 2010, their prays were answered by the gracious, courageous, kind, and generous owners of Hammond & Hammond Bailbondsman, Inc. They posted the $100,000 bond to secure Crystal Mangum’s release from jail. Lonnie Hammond and his wife Janet made the bond on Ms. Mangum’s behalf pro bono after reading an article in The Herald-Sun about efforts Ed Clark and some other members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong were making to raise bond.

Thankfully, Ms. Mangum, though not free, is no longer incarcerated at the Durham correctional facility… she’s is being electronically monitored to keep her from straying from her home. The same cannot be said for Johnny West, who, after making bond, is free to go wherever he pleases… with his shotgun… a man provoked to kill because a stranger yelled at him to slow down in a neighborhood where children were at play… a man who attempted to kill a stranger for yelling at him to slow down… and a man who took his daughter and two nephews with him to an armed confrontation with a stranger.

This is but one of many case comparisons that reinforces my belief that the North Carolina justice system has its priorities misplaced, to put it nicely. Bluntly, the state runs a “vendetta justice system based on Class and Color,” making a mockery of justice and making it the laughing stock of the nation. If it’s equal justice you’re after, North Carolina is not the place to be… just compare the cases of Crystal Mangum and Johnny West, and you’ll see.


JSwift said...


My comment on the last thread was intended as satire. Because you are new to this blog and somewhat unfamiliar with the original case, I will explain my thinking.

A simple Google search would have confirmed that the comment was not intended to be taken as fact. Ms. Mangum has not been declared to be innocent nor has a special prosecutor been appointed. I invented these “facts” to provide a direct comparison between the Duke case and the Mangum case. In that way, I had a special prosecutor in both cases declare defendants to be innocent.

The knowledgeable readers on this blog recognize that the quotations I attributed to the special prosecutor in the Mangum case were taken directly from Mr. Cooper’s press conference in which he declared the Duke defendants to be innocent or from the report the special prosecutors issued to summarize the findings of their investigation. In that way, the conclusions of the special prosecutors in the two cases were identical.

Similarly, the knowledgeable readers on this blog recognize that the quotations I attributed to Sidney were taken directly from his own statements related to the Duke case. Obviously, I had to change the references to the prosecutor and the defendants. As you know, Sidney professes to be free of bias. If that is the case, then his reactions to identical findings should be identical. In other words, Sidney could not object to the quotations I attributed to him without exposing himself as a hypocrite. As a result, I respectfully object to your characterization that I distorted Sidney's comments.

Sidney has taken the view that a prosecutor is only empowered to dismiss charges in a case. He believes that a prosecutor can say nothing about a defendant's innocence—even in a case found to be an egregious abuse of power by the original prosecutor, such as in bringing a case utterly without merit or one shown to be a deliberate frame. I can conclude only that Sidney believes that justice is best served by ambiguity.

I wanted to test Sidney’s stated lack of bias. He has, however, to no one's surprise declined to participate in this test. As you have seen, Sidney prefers to deliver a monologue rather than to engage in honest discussion.

The comments I attributed to Ms. Magnum were invented entirely. I expect that she would react with relief to a dismissal and feel vindicated by a declaration of innocence. These comments were intended to use Ms. Mangum as a vehicle for using common sense: she recognizes that the special prosecutor in my satire reached a conclusion of innocence based on a review of the evidence, and the evidence is or what should be important. This common sense approach is in stark contrast to the views of our esteemed host. Thus, her final comment, made with a touch of irony: "And some people think I'm crazy."

I hope that my explanation was helpful to you.

Finally, I do not understand your comment that Sidney was shown to have been correct.

I included nothing that could be taken as credible support of his Carpetbagger Jihad® theory (Sidney has provided none). I would have thought that he appeared somewhat ridiculous having claimed to have discovered a wide-ranging conspiracy (read again the partial list of conspirators compiled from Sidney's comments), based only on a job Rae Evans quit almost 30 years ago and a single quotation taken out of context.

Perhaps you can explain why you found that to be compelling?

kenhyderal said...

Sorry JSwift, I did not realize that you were being facetious. Only by beleiving your post, did I conclude that, in the matter of Crystal Mangum being unjustly treated, Nifong Supporter was shown to be correct. Since the report only was meant to be satirical my conclusion, based on beleiving it, was not correct. I did not broaden that to include the correctness of his opinions on the treatment of Mike Nifong and it's cause.

guiowen said...

It's clear that you were not familiar with the case. I'm sorry some of the bloggers on the last thread have, on that basis, decided that your posts are not worth reading. I'm happy to read your posts even if I disagree with many of them.
In fact, it was very obvious to all of us, who are familiar with the case, that JSwift was being facetious.

Number89 said...

I agree with guiowen here. Kenhyderal's posts are worth reading regardless if you agree or not. And although I have rarely seen a post from JSwift that I particularly agree with, his little satire was well done.

On the subject of Sidney's recent posts, it is clear to me that Crystal was overcharged, her bail was set way too high (even the second time on the reduced charges), and she spent too much time in jail for her alleged unauthorized science experiment. I believe the reason Crystal had this happen to her was for payback. There may not be proof that this is the case but the results are plain to see. It is natural for people to find someone to blame for their problems and Crystal gave them an opening, in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

i before e, except after c

Anonymous said...

the c being consortium, as in of conspirators

JSwift said...


I apologize that you misunderstood my question. I recognize your statement that Sidney had been proven correct was based on the assumed accuracy of my earlier post. As you know, Sidney has stated not only that Ms. Mangum has been mistreated (an assertion that has won a fair amount of support), but that this mistreatment is at the direction of the Carpetbagger Jihad® (an assertion that has won little support).

Had my satire actually been true (i.e., a special prosecutor really did proclaim Ms. Mangum’s innocence), how, if at all, would that proclamation support Sidney’s allegation that the Carpetbagger Jihad® is responsible? Or did your statement that Sidney was correct relate only to Ms. Mangum’s mistreatment and not to the underlying cause?

As I noted, I did not include what I considered to be any credible support for the Carpetbagger Jihad® theory (primarily because Sidney has provided none). Thanks in advance for your clarification.


I believe that you misunderstand our host. I believe it is clear that Sidney does not “want to have any engagement with people who are knowledgeable about the case.” As we have seen, Sidney prefers to deliver a monologue rather than to engage in honest debate. Posters who use their knowledge of the facts to contradict his narrative are inconveniences best ignored. Posters who are not knowledgeable about the facts are Sidney's target audience.

His refusal to honor his January 13 commitment to comment on Ms. Mangum’s written statement at his “earliest convenience” serves as one flagrant example of his refusal to acknowledge contrary facts. There are unfortunately too many other examples to list.

I acknowledge that we should be grateful that Sidney has kept open the comment feature. He thus permits criticism of his misleading and inaccurate monologue even if he ignores such criticism. Thank you, Sidney.


I am pleased that you found my satire well done. I thank you.

I am disappointed that you disagree with most of my comments. I have not seen your specific objections (except perhaps under a different name) and thus do not understand where you believe I have erred. I will be pleased to clarify my statements where needed or change my conclusions and offer heartfelt apologies if you convince me that I am wrong.

Number89 said...

I believe that Sidney likes a civil debate, it was the completely uncivil ones (that seem to be missing of late) that he rarely responded to. I have seen some decent discussions recently.

Your focus is not the same as his. He believes that Mr. Nifong was harshly and excessively mistreated by the State of NC. I believe there is a case to be made for that. He wants justice for Mr. Nifong and that seems to me to be a worthy goal. You believe that those Lacrosse boys were harshly and excessively mistreated by Mr. Nifong, the Durham Police (including the former chief, several investigators, and several supervisors that allowed the process to continue), the City of Durham (including the Mayor, former City Manager, City Council, and everybody in the city that voted for Nifong or any of the aforementioned people), Duke University (including Brodhead and just about every person on the faculty, board, and administration with one or two notable exceptions) and many of the students that were thanked for not waiting by these people; as well as Duke Medical, the entire group of local media and most of the national media as well (I am sure I am forgetting somebody).

I believe the Lacrosse members have received justice whereas you believe they have not and are still striving for changes to the system of justice, punishment, payback, revenge, reparations, more apologies, and a ton of money.

I believe that changes to the system of justice is a worthy goal but I also believe that these various lawsuits are not the way to accomplish that goal. I also believe that this is a goal you share with Sidney, so it is possible you have some small bit of common ground.

Brod Dickhead said...

All this touchy feely reaching out to each other is nauseating!

You are on opposite sides of a great divide called the TRUTH.Mike Nifong got caught and paid the price (insufficient in my opinion) for his fraudulent railroading of the Lacrosse Players. Sidney Harr is merely an ignorant shill for him; one who had no ability to think for himself and argue the facts coherently. He merely spouting the on going meme of black = good, white = bad! The fact that Nifong was only disbarred, should make him feel very relieved. Nifong only escaped federal prosecution because The US Attorney Anna Mill Wagoner was instructed to drop prosecution because the lacrosse players were WHITE.

Crystal Mangum is responsible for this whole sorry episode. She deserve the opprobium heaped upon her by the bloggers, she deserves to spend a great deal of time in jail - she has been given a free pass by Durham for long enough.

Y'all can skirt the real issues:

Corrupt DA Department
Corrupt and racist Police Force
Corrupt Judges
A racist City Council and
An absurdly politically correct and biased Press.(Remember the N&O and The Herald Sun anyone?)
Ignorant citizens
An ignorant minority of commenters who are only interested perpetuating the myth that "Something Happened"

This thing isn't going to be resolved by the oohing and aahing of Number 89, kenhyderal, Justice 88 et al, or anyone else. It is not going to be resolved by this asinine nonsensical blog. It will only be resolved by an impartial federal court case where all the evidence is open to discovery. Is that even possible in Duh'm?

Judging by the amount of time the judge is taking to make even the most preliminary of rulings, he is either hoping it will go away, or that he will die before it is forced to come to trial.

Are there even any citizens left in the sorry backwater you all call North Carolina that are not a complete bunch of morons?

I don't think so.

Y'all deserve each other.

Michael said...

JSwift said:

"As we have seen, Sidney prefers to deliver a monologue rather than to engage in honest debate. Posters who use their knowledge of the facts to contradict his narrative are inconveniences best ignored. Posters who are not knowledgeable about the facts are Sidney's target audience. His refusal to honor his January 13 commitment to comment on Ms. Mangum’s written statement at his 'earliest convenience' serves as one flagrant example of his refusal to acknowledge contrary facts."

To which I say: AMEN!

I'll also add that the "January 13 commitment," which I referred to as the "elephant" in an earlier post, is fundamental to everything that this blog stands for. If DNA evidence was not important to the Hoax, then certain of Sidney's points have potential validity. If, on the other hand, it was vital to the Hoax, as the State Bar concluded, then the underpinnings of his belief system fail entirely. He needs to introduce himself to the "elephant," or by failing to do so will solidify JSwift's assertion that this blog is simply a monologue.

And speaking of "belief system," the poster Number89 is all "belief" and nothing else. I'm sure in your relativist world, Number89, all "feelings" are "valued and affirmed," however irrational. Your last post, however, expresses "opinions" that are contradicted by voluminous citations from the three LAX complaints to evidence largely within the public record. In order to retain those opinions in a "reality-based" discussion (hat tip to K.C.) -the only one I'm willing to have, perhaps you might at least try to address that evidence and explain it away?

Nifong Supporter said...

Number89 accurately stated my position, which is relatively simple. I believe Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly disbarred, the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933. He did not withhold evidence, he did not lie to the courts, and what statements he made to the media were trivial and most were before indictments were handed down. Prosecutors such as Tom Ford, David Hoke, Bill Wolfe, and others have done much worse than what Mr. Nifong is accused of. Ford had no credible evidence against Greg Taylor and tried to get him to perjure himself to convict another innocent man. Taylor served 17 years of a life sentence before being freed by a three judge panel. Hoke withheld exculpatory evidence that proved Alan Gell could not have committed the murder for which he received the death penalty and spent ten years in jail. Wolfe, without credible evidence or physical evidence tying James Arthur Johnson to the murder of Brittany Willis, held Johnson in jail for 39 months without a trial because his case against him was so pathetic. This in light of the fact that Johnson solved the murder of Ms. Willis and was stiffed regarding the $20,000 reward which he earned.

Nothing untoward happened to Prosecutors Ford, Hoke, and Wolfe. Only Mike Nifong is disbarred on trivial nonsense. Most people are either refuse to support Mr. Nifong out of fear or because the media has played a Jedi mind-trick on them.

Rose said...

Let's look again at what I said in my post that for some reason you say is contradicted by a big pile of KC Johnson or something along those lines.

I said "I believe Sidney likes a civil debate.."
Are you disputing this belief? He tends to respond to civility rather than mindless rants by LAX fanatics.

I said: "I believe there is a case to be made for that. This was referring to Mr Nifong's treatment at the hands of NC. There are numerous posts on this subject just on this blog alone.

I said: I believe the Lacrosse members have received justice.... If you don't believe the dropping of charges was just then you should be calling for our next AG to take another look into this case.

I said: I believe that changes to the system of justice is a worthy goal but I also believe that these various lawsuits are not the way to accomplish that goal. I also believe that this is a goal you share with Sidney, so it is possible you have some small bit of common ground.
Do you think that change to the justice system is not a worthy goal? Does KC have some evidence about this? How about JSwift, do you not think his goal of changing the justice system is a worthy one? Or do you believe the best way to change our system of justice in North Carolina is to sue everybody and anybody that even looked at a LAX player with a small amount of doubt? Or perhaps you feel that there is no common ground that can be found between Sid and JSwift?

Anonymous said...

The monologue continues.

Anonymous said...

A Rose by any other name.......

guiowen said...

So Rose is No. 89?

Rose said...

They have taken away my number, and given me a name.

Anonymous said...

Rose is actually another alias for Sidney

Rose said...

Let me change my smilie then.

Michael said...

OK Rose, 89, whoever you are....

1. Civil & Debate. On the "civility" issue, Sidney may arguably prefer engaging with posters in a way that excludes name-calling but that privilege is not accorded LAX players, their families, the AG, or any one of his favored targets, all of whom are tarred routinely with value-laden adjectives (greedy, vindictive, carpetbagger, etc.) in lieu of any factual exposition justifying same. As far as "debate" goes, if he wanted to debate he'd answer the questions of his critics (elephant, anyone?) as I'm answering yours now.

2. Nifong's treatment at the hands of NC. Nifong was sentenced to a day in jail by a judge who believed he was lied to. That is the only punishment he received from North Carolina's government. I'm a lawyer, and in 25+ years of practice this is the LIGHTEST I've ever seen for an offense of this nature. So yes, I believe he received disparate treatment, but not the way Sidney looks at it. NOW, if you mean you agree with Sid that the 'Fong was selectively prosecuted by the STATE BAR, then you're not referring to the government but to a self-regulating professional organization. There was hardly a groundswell at the time for bringing ethics charges - the committee was virtually deadlocked and it was only by the slimmest of margines that they pursued his license to practice. Also, after the hearing Nifong admitted he'd been treated fairly. Sid's main argument on the "selective" treatment of his hero is the same argument my 4 teenagers trot out occasionally when their friends' parents let them get away with worse conduct than their mom and I do. It's a silly and emotionally/intellectually immature argument. Just because others' get away with something doesn't make wrong conduct less wrong. Since Sid is so free and loose with facts in the LAX Hoax, I'm not sure I trust his expositions on these other cases of prosecutorial abuse. But if they're true, I don't know that any of Sid's critics (me included) would say that these wrongdoers should have kept their law licenses either. But that's not the culmination of Sid's argument. Rather it's that the 'Fong should be spared just like the other miscreants. Don't agree. Rather see them all sitting at home playing the guitar.

3. LAX team and justice. If by justice you mean they weren't wrongfully prosecuted, we ALL have that right. That's not much to ask from one's government. However, if by justice you mean all the wrongdoers have been removed from positions where they can do further harm, and by paying this price there example serves as a warning to others, then no, with the exception of the 'Fong, that hasn't happened.

4. Changes to the system of justice and lawsuits. Since the passage of the Civil war amendments to the constitution, one of the primary ways that the government has been held accountable and forced to change its ways is through private civil rights litigation. That's what's happening here. The other two ways are through federal lawsuits (ain't happening - Fed certainly had enough folks asking for it) and state legislation. Do you really think NC is going to pass a law that requires it to pay for oversight of the Durham Police Department in the middle of a budget crisis? No, the current lawsuits are the ONLY practical way to bring about the changes you and Sid PRETEND to want. I say pretend, because its clear that you only want reform in a way that won't be construed as "the greedy white boys winning their case." Well, here's something that might make you "feel" better - sometimes people you like the least make the best plaintiffs in civil rights cases.

Rose said...

4 teens? You poor unfortunate soul. Are they looking for a good college(Duke maybe)?

All kidding aside, you made some excellent points. I liked the example of the kids complaining about what other parents let them get away with. I don't believe you took that example to it's next logical step however.

The State Bar (I agree with the distinction you made) has a bunch of kids to keep track of. They have had a few get into trouble and have had to decide on how to punish those particular kids. In Nifong's case they decided to make an example of him with an unfair punishment. All of the rest of the kids are laughing their heads off at what they got away with for a slap on the wrist and look at what Mikey got for doing much less.

As to you example of lawsuits changing the system of justice, I think you have more experience with that than me. I don't know however, that one city in North Carolina can have a completely different system than another. Some of the demands are a bit much. Since you mentioned KC, lets link to his list of these demands:


There are a few of these that go way overboard.

Anonymous said...

Rose: There are a few of these that go way overboard.

Which ones?

Michael said...

There's not a prosecutor in the country that's laughing
about what happened to Nifong. Look at how little the
Charlottesville prosecutor is saying about that case.

Federal judges have wide discretion on remedies when
they put Police Departments under supervision. They
don't have to look to what other departments in the same
state are doing.

Anonymous said...


Your race hustling bigotry is showing again.

You would have been calling for Nifong to be lynched, never mind being outraged at his disbarment had the races of the accuser and the accused in this frame been reversed.

Rose said...

This independent Monitor sounds more like a dictator. He makes all policy. He does the hiring, firing, and promoting. He tells the police what to do, what to say, what not to say. Even this citizens committee can only make recommendations to him. He is in for 10 years. Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

The training sounds like a good idea, and the lineup procedures are a no-brainer. But the monitor? Just imagine if they put Anon @ 11:17AM in charge.

Anonymous said...

Rose: This independent Monitor sounds more like a dictator.

Civilian oversight apparently has not worked so well.

Anonymous said...


Bad news for you & Mikey! One of Mikey's victims has graduated. (I won't, however, sully his good name any further by mentioning it on your hateful blog, Sid). A great long article full of the facts.

".... recently won the school's John R. Moller award for achievement in academics, athletics and character.

"It is a huge honor. It is a very significant award, and it reflects the way he fit into the team," said the Rev. Brian Linnane, president of Loyola. "It's unimaginable to be accused the way he was, and the way he moved beyond that with great grace and became a leader, it says a lot about him and his family."

Eat your heart out Sid & Mikey


Anonymous said...

continued from above


"Still living in north Durham with his wife, Cy Gurney. His wife said Friday that Nifong does not speak to the media. After the case Nifong was disbarred, spent a night in jail on a contempt conviction and declared bankruptcy. After Nifong's wife was told Newsday was calling about Collin Finnerty's graduation and homecoming, she said, "I think that's wonderful. I can't speak for my husband, and I wasn't involved in the case, but I think that sounds like a great story. I believe that people should go forward."

So... even your wife thinks he did great. Not a word about how
'something happened".

Mikey - so you 'no longer talk to the press! How poetic. No more free publicity for you.

The biter bit - bigtime!!!!


Still Anonymous said...

Sid -- You keep repeating "He did not withhold evidence, he did not lie to the courts, and what statements he made to the media were trivial..." as if the mere act of repetition would somehow make this true. It does not. This has been explained to you multiple times, and the evidence proving this statement wrong is readily available.

Nifong Supporter said...

As I said before, I have no animus against the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Never have. I am glad Mr. Finnerty graduated, but let's not forget that he was convicted of assaulting men who he believed to be gay, and was a frequent participant at the beer-guzzling stripper parties with underaged drinkers that the Duke Lacrosse team held. So I wouldn't call him a paragon of virtue. I think that Rev. Linnane went overboard in his praise. Many people are accused of rape and spend decades in prison. Mr. Finnerty did not spend one day in jail. He received seven million from Duke University in an out of court settlement and had the media backing him all the way as it trashed Mr. Nifong and everything considered to be on the "wrong side" of the Duke Lacrosse case. His notoriety in the Duke Lacrosse case was even responsible for his assault conviction being expunged from his record.

Yes, I'm glad he graduated, and do not wish him ill, but I think that people need to keep things in perspective. Mr. Finnerty's travails were trivial.

Anonymous said...

@ Still Anonymous:

I completely endorse your post. Sidney has a mindset that can only be characterised by the Latin "cogito ergo est".

No amount of factual evidence will change it. He will therefore continue to ignore any post (and poster) that runs counter to his view on things.

Anonymous said...


In keeping with your: Mr. Finnerty's travails were trivial comment, I think we may then agree that Mr Nifong's travails also were trivial.

After all, he was merely disbarred (civil); only spent one night in jail (quasi-criminal); and was declared bankrupt (civil). This was indeed trivial punishment for an officer of the court who should have been indicted on Federal conspiracy, obstruction of justice and fraud charges. Since you are so knowledgable, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the penalties for those charges are?

Nifong Supporter said...

To Anonymous:

I'm not going to subscribe to Newsday just to read their article. Would you please e-mail me the contents of the article, and I will comment. Thanks. Send it to

Anonymous said...

No Sidney!

Do your own research and investigation. Your blog obviously has ample financial support from "The Comittee" and others, including Nifong.

YOu have never yet posted an 'informed' opinion, why would you possibly wish to start now?

Michael said...

"Witnesses testified that Collin never threw a punch; it was Collin’s friend that struck the accuser — after he had knocked Collin to the ground from behind. Collin was convicted of 'menacing behavior,' and spent six months on probation. The accuser, according to Mary Ellen [Finnerty], was not gay, and none of the boys ever thought he was. Neither the arresting officer, the DA nor the judge in that case believed that the actions of the young men constituted a hate crime."

1. CF was not convicted of assault. That's a fact.

2. The "victim" was not gay.

3. CF and all others involved on his side of the altercation dispute the notion that they ever thought he was gay.

But...just keep on pumping out the propaganda, Sid, as if your opinions are fact.

The LAX team may have had a pattern of underage drinking, but you have a pattern of overage propagandizing. Their excuse is youth. What's yours?

Michael said...

"...and was a frequent participant at the beer-guzzling stripper parties with underaged drinkers that the Duke Lacrosse team held." You know of more than one stripper party? Do tell, Sidney. Where? when?

If CF was a FREQUENT participant, and he left Duke as a freshman, these stripper parties must have been weekly events. How come I never heard of all these parties?

Please add to "overage propagandizing" (from my previous post, "overage hyperbolizing."

kenhyderal said...

Brod Dickhead said (about Crystal Mangum): She is well known in Durham, and is extremely well connected with the Power Structures of that City; including being known by none other that (you guessed it) Mike Nifong and his wife Cy Gurney. So to say that she has no resources is, to put it charitably, just not true...............................
I find this impossible to believe. Crystal Mangum part of the power structure of Durham? She is a poor struggling single mother.

Anonymous said...

@ kenhyderal:

All you are doing is showing your ignorance. Most posters here are extremely knowledgeable (having done what is commonly called research)on the Lacrosse Frame and Mangum in particular, I have a suggestion for you - do something similar.

As a primer (aCrystal Mangum for Dummies if you will) read the following:. It was written in April of 2006, so it cannot be said to be of recent origin.

In an earlier post I gave you a very short reading list of references regarding the Frame - it appears you haven't read any of the references contained therein.

Regarding your specific query, you might start your own research by asking Sidney why Nifong did not recuse himself from the case at the very start, as his wife (and he) had had prior dealings with the Mangum family. Google is a good!

Anyway, enough hints to be getting on with.

I do not really hold out much hope that you will read any of the references given, as it has become obvious that Nifong Supporters on this Blog tend "never to let the facts get in the way of their narrative".

Brod Dickhead

Anonymous said...

That article looks like it has been updated in 2007, 2008, and 2010 with the listing of those bogus charges that got her thrown in jail with an enormously unfair bail amount. And no, Crystal is not part of the "power structure" in Durham.


Anonymous said...

Rose/89 -- You're correct -- Crystal is not part of the "power structure". Unfortunately for her, she's been a victim. First of Nifong, and now of those hand-picked by him and the fine citizens of Durham, Tracey Cline.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said: "All you are doing is showing your ignorance" By questioning Brod Dickhead's statement? It would seem that you also agree, that is an absurdity. So how is I I was displaying my ignorance by questioning it?

Nifong Supporter said...

Michael said...
"OK Rose, 89, whoever you are....

1. Civil & Debate. On the 'civility' issue, Sidney may arguably prefer engaging with posters in a way that excludes name-calling but that privilege is not accorded LAX players, their families, the AG, or any one of his favored targets, all of whom are tarred routinely with value-laden adjectives (greedy, vindictive, carpetbagger, etc.) in lieu of any factual exposition justifying same."

I do not believe that the term "carpetbagger" is the same as name-calling. It is a descriptive term that accurately describes the families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. With regards to terms such as "vindictive" that is taken from the mouth of Rae Evans (mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans), who stated in a "60 Minutes" interview that Mr. Nifong would "pay, every day, for the rest of his life." As far as greedy or avariciousness goes, I believe that it is as appropriate when, after their sons received $7 million each in an out-of-court settlement from Duke University, tries to extort an additional settlement in the amount of $10 million each for no legitimate reason. I believe that I have explained my reasons for using such descriptive terms and adjectives in the past.

Nifong Supporter said...

To Anonymous:

Anonymous said...
"No Sidney!

Do your own research and investigation. Your blog obviously has ample financial support from 'The Comittee' and others, including Nifong."

I am happy to say that someone has e-mailed me a complete copy of the article, and I plan on posting a blog in response to it later today, by Saturday at the latest. The blog is titled, "The Nifongs are a class act... the same can't be said about 'Newsday'."

CarpetbaggerFan said...

Sidney may be right about the name "Carperbagger" accurately describing the Duke LAX families. Consider, for example, one Albion W. Tourgée, North Carolina's most prominent carpetbagger.

Michael said...

Spend some time addressing the DNA elephant, Sidney.

Nifong Supporter said...

Question to all: How do you feel about "Newsday" 's attempt to interview Mr. Nifong for the article about Finnerty's graduation? Read the following post and comment on it. (Will post it momentarily.) Thanks.