After Hammond & Hammond Bailbondsmen, Inc. satisfied conditions for the $100,000 bond for Crystal Mangum and she was released from the Durham Detention Center into house arrest, she was no longer totally incommunicado. The biased media, of course, has not made an effort to interview her or do anything to present her side of what took place on the night of February 17, 2010. They just attempted to put a positive light on the police/prosecutor story, while ignoring its inherent problems with timeframe and logic. One important issue that almost all media have stayed away from is the alleged vandalism of the car of Crystal’s ex-boyfriend. This destructive act was referenced to in the Durham Police’s Incident/investigative report and in the indictment obtained from the Grand Jury.
The Grand Jury Indictment obtained April 5, 2010, alleges that Ms. Mangum “did wantonly injure personal property of Milton Walker, including clothing, car tires and the windshield of his car.” Neither the police nor prosecution put forth a statement with a credible timeline of when and how this damage to Mr. Walker’s car took place. Also, they do not give any credible evidence linking Ms. Mangum to the incident. For example, did the damage to his car take place the night of February 17th, and, if so, when... prior to the domestic dispute? Or did she damage the car after he initiated the fight with Crystal by punching her in the face? Did Mr. Walker call the police about the car damage after discovering it? How did Mr. Walker get home after the incident? Can it be documented that Mr. Walker did have his tires and windshield replaced?
The only media document that I could find that even mentioned the allegedly vandalized car was an article written by Keith Upchurch for the Herald-Sun newspaper. His statement about the vandalism is vague, and doesn’t even hint that Ms. Mangum was responsible for it. Mr. Upchurch’s single sentence on the vandalism is: “Thursday afternoon, an empty black Lincoln car with four flat tires and a shattered windshield was in the driveway, and a leaf blower was in the front yard.” The question is, to whom does the car belong? I tried to obtain photographs of the car, but was informed by Mr. Upchurch that no photographs were taken. I believe that this is relevant because the police incident report describes Mr. Walker’s car as being a blue 2000 Oldsmobile Park Avenue, and not a black Lincoln. I have no idea how to explain this discrepancy. However, when taken as a whole, the credibility of the police/prosecutor’s story is severely strained.
One final point about the car vandalism… Ms. Mangum has always maintained that the argument arose after she broke up with him and asked him to remove his belongings and leave the house. Does it make any sense that she would do anything to hamper his move – such as slash all four of his tires? The police are trying to present the car vandalism as being motivated by Ms. Mangum rage, but the truth is is that Ms. Mangum was not angry with Mr. Walker… at least not prior to him punching her in the face.
Issues revolving around the burned clothes in the bathtub, likewise, are vague and nonspecific. One media source referred to a “bathtub full” of clothes being burned… but whether only a handful of clothes or many clothes were damaged has always been unclear in police and media reports. Were only Mr. Walker’s clothing burned, as the media would lead one to believe? Two things troublesome about the clothing burned in the bathtub are: (1) that the authorities are trying to define this as first degree arson, even though there was no flame damage to the structure; and (2) that the authorities are trying to lay blame on the clothes burning to Crystal Mangum without credible evidence. To my knowledge no officer admitted to witnessing the origin of the fire. Ms. Mangum, according to one report, was supposedly seen carrying clothes into the bathroom, although this report is suspect as she denied ever doing so.
The fact that the media went to extremes and avoided writing about the car vandalism speaks volumes about the veracity of such an occurrence. I believe that the car vandalism accusation was conveniently employed to increase the amount of personal property damaged attributed to Ms. Mangum to an amount greater than $200.
In conclusion, the injury to personal property charge against Ms. Mangum is as bogus as the attempted first degree murder charge, and like that charge, it should be dropped as well. Fact is all charges against Ms. Mangum should be immediately dropped. This entire case against her is nothing more than vendetta justice in retaliation for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. It is judicial discrimination to which all Nifong supporters and “wrong-enders” (individuals considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case) are being unfairly subjected.