Sunday, August 1, 2010

Judge Claude Allen owes an explanation in Crystal Mangum case

If the trumped up charges were not enough, Magistrate B. Wakil compounded problems by placing a $1 million bail against Crystal Mangum. What could justify such a high bail, you ask? It must undoubtedly be the charge of attempted first degree murder that was lodged against Ms. Mangum by the arresting police. The best I can tell, as the police reports are really vague, sketchy, and non-existent when it comes to details, Ms. Mangum, after seeing her ex-boyfriend re-enter her apartment following their earlier encounter, allegedly lunged forward towards him and shouted something to the effect that, “I’m going to stab you.” Although she may have uttered those words, police did not record her as having any implement with which to carry out her threat. In fact, she was never recorded as having anything in her hands, except clothes which she allegedly placed in the bathtub. This, of course, is a total fabrication, as she never carried clothes in the officers’ presence, and the bathroom door was closed until Durham Police Officer Tyler kicked it in (long after Ms. Mangum was handcuffed). Anyway, the alleged forward movement by Ms. Mangum coupled with the words “I’m going to stab you,” constituted grounds for attempted first degree murder.

Compare this with the case of Labrian Lynch who had a domestic dispute with his girlfriend. During the dispute, Mr. Lynch stabbed his girlfriend in the leg with a knife. To escape from him, she jumped out of the car which they occupied, and ran into the street where she was struck by another car. She was taken to the emergency room, then hospitalized for treatment. Mr. Lynch was arrested on the charge of “assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury.” Now, he was not charged with “attempted first degree murder” even though he did, in fact, stab his girlfriend. In other words, you won’t be charged with attempted first degree murder if you stab someone, but you will be charged with attempted first degree murder if you lunge, unarmed, towards someone and say, “I’m going to stab you.” This is the sort of thing that makes North Carolina’s justice system the laughing stock of the country.

Mr. Lynch’s bail was set at $60,000, a fraction of the initial $1million bail for Ms. Mangum on trumped up charges. And when Mr. Lynch’s bail was satisfied, he was told not to have contact with his girlfriend. He was not put under electronic house arrest with an anklet. Yet, Crystal Mangum, a victim of domestic violence who posed no flight risk or threat to society was placed under house arrest after satisfying a $100,000 bail. Why? I don’t know, but it is my understanding that the condition requiring Ms. Mangum to be place under house arrest in the event that she bonded out came from District Court Judge Claude Allen. He was the first judge to sit in on a hearing for Ms. Mangum after her arrest, and he reduced her bail from $1million to $250,000. When he did so, he put in place the condition that if she bonded out, she would be required to be placed under electronic house arrest.

To my knowledge, Judge Allen never explained why he felt that it was necessary to impose this punitive and burdensome condition on Ms. Mangum in a case that a cursory look would tell anyone that the charges were bogus. Judge Allen, furthermore had no reason to believe that Ms. Mangum would be a flight risk, as she was born in Durham, had spent most of her life in Durham (with the exception of a couple of years while serving in the U.S. Navy), had three children in Durham, had no car or means of transportation, and had not the financial wherewithal to pick up and move elsewhere. Was Judge Allen’s action in requiring house arrest on a defendant who had bonded out arbitrary? To determine whether or not it was the rule or the exception to the rule would necessitate an investigation of how Judge Allen handled other similar cases. If I knew Judge Allen’s past history, I could more accurately determine the motives for his peculiar house arrest ruling. However, until I have more data, I am inclined to believe that his action in requiring monitoring of Ms. Mangum was directly due to his desire to adhere to the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda, which calls for the malicious and vindictive treatment of those determined by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong-end of the Duke Lacrosse case. Whether or not it was a conscious or subconscious decision is another matter that might be considered for debate. The mainstream media’s success in playing Jedi mind-tricks on the public is a powerful force which should not be underestimated.

Only Judge Claude Allen has an idea as to the reasons why he made the condition that Ms. Mangum be placed under house arrest in the event she was able to bond out. I think that it is important for him to explain the reasoning behind that determination. My opinion is that he set forth that condition as a last-ditch measure to assure that in the unlikely event Ms. Mangum was able to bond out, that she would still be under the control of the prosecutor… that the prosecutor would still have a bargaining chip with which to try and secure a plea deal with Ms. Mangum.

I am aware of only one other case in which the condition was in place that if a defendant bonded out he/she would be placed under house arrest. This is the case of a suspected rape defendant named Gregory Boykin, and it took place a couple of month after Judge Allen’s ruling in the Mangum case. Someone, I believe a magistrate, set bail at $500,000 (half the initial bail of Ms. Mangum) and set a condition that if he bonded out, he would be required to be under electronic house arrest (the same conditions that Ms. Mangum faced). Two days later, however, Mr. Boykin’s case was brought before the Honorable Judge Jennifer Knox, who reduced his bail to $300,000, and dismissed the condition that he would have to be placed under house arrest if he satisfied bail. In other words, he would be treated like everyone else who satisfied bail… he would be free until his case came to trial. The reasons Judge Knox struck down the house arrest condition for Mr. Boykin I do not know, but I believe that she did it because it was the fair, ethical and moral thing to do.

I applaud the Honorable Judge Knox for doing the right thing in Gregory Boykin’s case. Judges Paul Ridgeway and Michael Morgan, who have sat on hearings before Crystal Mangum, both failed to fully address the house arrest and monitoring issue, and let it stand. It is Judge Allen, however, who owes all an explanation for imposing the electronic monitoring issue in the first place. An explanation is due in order to satisfy questions of fairness and impartiality in our state’s justice system. Until a logical reason for implementing the house arrest condition is forthcoming from Judge Allen, faith in the state’s system of justice will be lacking.


To test your comprehension on a recent topic about MSNBC Senior Legal Analyst Susan Filan, visit the link below and click on Quiz 9. You will be graded.
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/quiz/quiz.htm

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow! That judge must have at least
three lacrosse sticks stuffed
up his ass.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

In how many of these cases did the defendant not have to put up any of their own cash? They would have had to do so if they posted their own bond or if they paid a bail bondsman's fee. Could Crystal be perceived as a greater flight risk because she doesn't have any of her own money at risk?

Anonymous said...

Judge Claude Allen owes an explanation in Crystal Mangum case

No he doesn't

Anonymous said...

Mr. Harr

You have made an issue of the past behavior of the members of the Duke Lacrosse team.

Why are you not making an issue of Crystal Mangum's background. According to police records compiled before March of 2006, she stole an automobile, led police on a high speed chase, tried to run down an officer with the car.

She also, on a previous occasion, falsely accused men of raping her.

Why is that background not significant.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sid,

In how many of these cases did the defendant not have to put up any of their own cash? They would have had to do so if they posted their own bond or if they paid a bail bondsman's fee. Could Crystal be perceived as a greater flight risk because she doesn't have any of her own money at risk?"


You make my point. If Ms. Mangum cannot even afford to pay to bond out, how can she be expected to flee. She has no car. She has no money to pay to leave Durham. She has no money to put up for an apartment or pay for a motel. And what about paying for food? What about her children, or do expect her to flee and leave her children in Durham? Crystal is no flight risk any way you dice it.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Mr. Harr

You have made an issue of the past behavior of the members of the Duke Lacrosse team.

Why are you not making an issue of Crystal Mangum's background. According to police records compiled before March of 2006, she stole an automobile, led police on a high speed chase, tried to run down an officer with the car.

She also, on a previous occasion, falsely accused men of raping her.

Why is that background not significant."


I am not saying that background is not significant. The reason I bring up past Duke Lacrosse behavior is to make a case for the possibility, if not probability that a sexual assault against Ms. Mangum did occur in March 2006.

Also, Ms. Mangum's background is significant, but it is not really relevant in the incident that occurred in February 2010. She was not accused of stealing a car, trying to kill a police officer, or falsely accusing anyone of rape. However, her ex-boyfriend, who was determined by Durham police to be the victim in the domestic violence incident, has a past history of punching his ex-wife in the face in a domestic dispute... his past background that the police and prosecutors conveniently ignored.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Harr

How do you account for the lack of evidence that any sexual assault on Ms. Mangum occurred in March of 2006

kenhyderal said...

A bungled police investigation?

Anonymous said...

Everybody's lying.

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal @ August 2, 2010 9:54 AM

DA Nifong had custody of the rape kit immediately after the exam in the Duke University ER. The State Crime Lab tested the kit and found no evidence of a rape. The only genetic material found by DNA Security did not match any of the suspects. Please explain that.

Anonymous said...

Now there is a load of crap.

See. Everybody's lying.

Anonymous said...

kenhyerdal

Please describe how the police botched the investigation of such a high profile case

Anonymous said...

Has Roy Cooper ever informed
the Durham Police what his so-called
"new evidence" was?

Hell no.

Did Roy Cooper ever tell Nifong?

Hell no.

Don't worry .

Be happy you
beat the rap.

And remember to be very generous with
your contributions to the N.C. Democrat Party.

Nifong Supporter said...


Prosecutor Angela Garcia-Lamarca is desperately trying to get Crystal Mangum to agree to a plea deal because the case against Ms. Mangum is nothing more than trumped up garbage. I will expound in my next blog. Please allow a few minutes to upload.

kenhyderal said...

@ Anonymous Aug 2, 3:49 PM All present, Players and Guests as well as Dancers should have independently been required, in a timely fashion, to give statements and then have these compared for discrepancies. Hopefully, some of these statements would be more coherent and articulate and less self-serving then the one given by Evans. A piece of writing of grade-school level, let alone one produced by a University student. It's quality makes one wonder if his admittance to Duke was based soley on athletic ability.

Anonymous said...

Dave had a wicked hang-over.

Whoopee ! !

Let's get drunk
and hire strippers ! !

Anonymous said...

kenhyerdal

Had you studied the case, you would have known why that did not happen.

After the party had broken up,kim roberts called 911, claiming she and her girlfriend had been called n----r while either walking or driving past the buchanan avenue house.

The next episode was at the kroger store when the police were called because crystal mangum would not exit kim roberts' car. The officers responding thought ms. mangum was drunk. They took her to an intake center for detoxification. At that institution, a nurse asked s. mangum if she had been raped. That was the first mention of rape.

Ms. mangum was then taken to DUMC for forensic exam. That was where the rape kit was prepared. There was no chance of destroying evidence on the rape kit.

Ms. Mangum's description, in the medical record, was that of a rape which would have left evidence on the rape kit.

The question Mangum/Nifong apologists have yet to answer is how such a rape could have happened and not left any evidence.