Monday, July 19, 2010

Million dollar bail… a case comparison – Part 10

Earl Travis Deans Jr., of Pikeville, in Wayne County was arrested on Wednesday, July 14, 2010, and slapped with charges which include: second degree kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, and assault on a female. Of note is that Mr. Deans was not charged with attempted murder. Outstanding charges against Mr. Deans included: five counts of failure to appear in court, and two counts of failure to pay child support.

According to law enforcement, current charges stemmed from a Sunday, July 11th argument between Deans, 34, and his on again, off again 24 year-old girlfriend. He is alleged to have imprisoned the woman since Sunday by tying her up with phone cord and locking her in a bedroom closet until her escape three days later on Wednesday, July 14th. During her captivity, sheriff’s officials state that the young lady was beaten and burned with a curling iron, and presented physically with bruises and burns all over her body. Wayne County sheriff’s Captain Tom Effler stated that Deans also cut off all her scalp hair. After the three days of torture, the victim of Deans was taken to Wayne Memorial Hospital where she was hospitalized.

Deans’s past criminal history, which dates back to 1997, includes a conviction for assault on a female, and simple assault. He served a three months jail sentence for a 2008 conviction of resisting a public officer and violations for his probation for assault on a female and larceny in 2007.

Now despite the seriousness of charges against him, his past violent criminal past record, and his failure to appear five times in court, Mr. Deans’s bail was set at only $103,000. This amount is approximately one-tenth the bail set for Crystal Mangum on trumped up charges filed against her on February 18, 2010. In that incident, Ms. Mangum was attacked and beaten by her ex-boyfriend, and committed no criminal act. The one million dollar bail levied, and the ludicrous charges leveled against her were nothing more than payback for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. Not unlike the February 17th incident, Ms. Mangum was a victim in the lacrosse case, as well. In short, the current criminal boondoggle is a prime example of North Carolina’s vendetta justice.

To add insult to injury, Mr. Deans will not be required to be placed under house arrest or electronic monitoring if he bonds out. Although released under a $100,000 bail, the house arrest order that Ms. Mangum has been placed under is purely malicious, unwarranted, and cruel… again, representing North Carolina’s vendetta justice.

Ms. Mangum, after her hearing on Monday, July 12, 2010, theoretically remains under house arrest, which because of a few hours on weekdays during which she is at liberty to leave the confines of the house is euphemistically referred to as “electronic surveillance.” She has some unrestricted freedom to move about away from the house, but only during the weekday hours of 8:00 am until 5:00 pm. From 5:00 pm until 8:00 am, and on weekends she is confined to the residence under which she is on house arrest.

Crystal Mangum, just like former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, is being persecuted by the state because of her link to the Duke Lacrosse case, and the media is working hard to pull a Jedi mind-trick on the public in order to demonize her just like it did Mr. Nifong. The selective justice and special treatment that is blatantly administered should be recognized by the people for what it is… an infringement on the rights of all the people to be treated with “equal justice for all.”

20 comments:

kenhyderal said...

@ Nifong Supporter........ It would apper that your critics have been left speechless,

Anonymous said...

no. just done with what is clearly not worth discussing anymore. ravings of a mad man can never be argued unless you intend to go mad yourself. not worth it. who wants to see every case --every bond --every decision filtered through nifong and mangum? it was a lot more intellectual when the focus was sensible...now sidney is just rambling and reaching at everything and everybody. the entire world is not full out conspiracy on these two idiots. sidney each day you go there you reduce your already tiny credibility. i think you just went out on the last limb by yourself...have fun out there alone.

Anonymous said...

ravings - you are a dope.

you want conspiracies?

try reading the lunatic

civil suits invented

by the lacrosse nuts.

you are a dope.

kenhyderal said...

@ Anonymous 9:56 AM It's not much of a reach to conclude that Crystal Mangum, for some reason, was treated more harshly then is usually the case. Nifong Supporter has cited several examples of accused, with worse charges, being given more lenient treatment and none of his critics have given examples of similar treatment being given for charges like those Crystal faces. Besides there seems to be deliberate over-charging(i.m.o.)

Nifong Supporter said...


kenhyderal said...
"@ Nifong Supporter........ It would apper that your critics have been left speechless,"

I agree with your assessment here, as well. It is hard to attack the logic that states Crystal Mangum was charged excessively and bail set much higher than many whose acts have been far more egregious and have yet received lenient treatment and much less bail.


The upcoming blog, which should be posted this Friday (tomorrow) or Saturday promises to be very thought provoking and important.

Lance the Intern said...

No Sid, it's just that it makes no sense to continue to beat this dead horse.

Anonymous said...

Lance, are you having trouble achieving a lacrosse related
orgasm today? Has your lacrosse stick gone limp on you?

Try visiting this exciting new lacrosse website:

Ryan'sOriginalBestHand-DrawnLacrosseDicks.com

Guaranteed to stiffen the most beat lacrosse horses.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Harr, for keeping the outside world updated on Crystal's serious legal troubles. Rumor is that Durham's public defender office has replaced her former public defender (the one who quit over objection to you) with just someone else from his own office. Is this really true?

Lance the Intern said...

Anonymous@12:12pm = Troll.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ July 22, 2010 1:38 PM:

You sound like kilgo. Nothing comes from you but meaningless ad hominem attacks. Kilgo would do that whenever challenged to manifest what he really did know about the lacrosse case.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ July 22, 2010 9:16 PM

Reference is made to an anonymous post to the previous blog entry, one which referred to the legal expenses incurred by the Lacrosse team defendants. The essence of the comment was, why would they pay so much for legal representation if they were innocent.

Crystal Mangum has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to legal representation. That she has legal representation, should that be considered an indication that she is guilty?

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr

I again refer to the anonymous poster who said, in effect, that the Lacrosse players' legal expenses were an indication of their guilt. You let that pass without any comment.

Does that mean you believe Mike Nifong was correct to question their right to legal counsel, that their retention of legal counsel was an indication of their guilt?

Are you saying that Crystal Mangum's availing herself of legal counsel is indicative of her guilt?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Eager Legal Beagle, you are mistaken.

You are not in a courtroom.

You are in a lacrosse whore house, although
you lawyers may not sometimes know the difference.

If you want a judge, go look upstairs and find out
who he is screwing.

For other complaints, see the madam.

We are not here to argue. We are here to get laid.

Now drop your pants, the meter is ticking.

And yes, only the guilty hire Joe Cheshire.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney Harr

I again refer to the anonymous poster who said, in effect, that the Lacrosse players' legal expenses were an indication of their guilt. You let that pass without any comment.

Does that mean you believe Mike Nifong was correct to question their right to legal counsel, that their retention of legal counsel was an indication of their guilt?

Are you saying that Crystal Mangum's availing herself of legal counsel is indicative of her guilt?"

I do not recall Mr. Nifong stating that the retention of legal counsel is an indication of guilt by a defendant. Defendants are entitled to legal representation to fight charges against them.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr

Pre indictment, Mike Nifong made a statement, referring to members of the lacrose team, that he wondered why anyone would need a lawyer if that individual was innocent and had not been charged with anything. This was after he had named Lacrosse players as suspects.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ July 23, 2010 10:58 AM:

"And yes, only the guilty hire Joe Cheshire."

Alan Gell hired Joe Cheshire.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr

"Defendants are entitled to legal representation to fight charges against them."

Why did you not say that to the commenter who said the Lacrosse players' retention of counsel at great personal expense was an indication of their guilt?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney Harr

Pre indictment, Mike Nifong made a statement, referring to members of the lacrose team, that he wondered why anyone would need a lawyer if that individual was innocent and had not been charged with anything. This was after he had named Lacrosse players as suspects."


I believe the important part of the statement is "... if that individual was innocent and had not been charged with anything." If the prosecutor was solely interested in obtaining information about a criminal incident, then the need for legal representation would not be necessary.

James Arthur Johnson went to Wilson Police with information which solved the crimes against Brittany Willis, yet he ended up spending 39 months in jail and being charged with capital murder. He would've benefitted by the presence of legal representation when voluntarily going to police with information about a crime, but in his case, the Wilson police and prosecutors had an agenda. But no one is critical of Prosecutor Bill Wolfe...

Crystal Mangum agreed to speak to police without an attorney present when police investigated incidents which occurred on the night of February 17, 2010, and which resulted in her arrest. Police and Prosecutor Angela Garcia-Lamarca had an agenda when they questioned her, but, again, no one is critcal of this prosecutor.

Most people who are innocent of a crime have no problem talking with investigators about it without a prosecutor present, so I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Nifong in his statement.


Allow a few minutes for me to post the next blog which goes into depth about a fabricated statement by MSNBC Senior Legal Analyst Susan Filan. It includes a link to our official website's newest page - Investigative Reports - which goes into depth, with documentation, about the topic presented.

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr

Before Mr. Nifong made his lawyer statement, he publicly proclaimed that a rape had occurred. He claimed members of the Duke Lacrosse team had been the perpetrators.

He obtained a non testimonial order to force members of the Lacrosse team to give specimens for DNA analysis. He did this because he said the dna results would show who was guilty. Boy did he change his turn when the dna results came back negative.

At the time Mr. Nifong believed someone was guilty. He was objecting to the defendants obtaining legal counsel and following the advice of their counseo.

What about his statement that the guilty ones had rich daddies who would hire expensive lawyers to get them off.

Anonymous said...

MORE DUMB ASS FROM THE LACROSSE DUMB ASSES


-CUT-

He obtained a non testimonial order...

THE COPS GOT THE NTO , DUMB ASS

-CUT- MORE DUMB ASS--

YOU FLUNK

DUMB ASS LACROSSE DUMB ASS