Sunday, January 23, 2011

Not surprising that D.A. won’t re-try Mangum

I recently was made aware by an e-mail from a friend that the prosecution has publicly stated that it will not seek to re-try Duke Lacrosse case victim Crystal Mangum on the phony trumped up arson charge. Although I know that the Carpetbagger families and their attorneys, the higher echelon at Duke University, and the media types would love to stick Mangum with a felony, prosecutors obviously learned their lesson from the Gregory Taylor case. Prosecutor Tom Ford and Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby fought a hearing before a three judge panel in which Gregory Taylor sought to have his 17 year old murder conviction overturned. It was during his hearing that misdeeds and malfeasance by the SBI lab came to light. For whatever reason, the media, especially The News & Observer, put this issue on the front burner and went after SBI agents, lab techs, and everyone but the very prosecutors who were behind legal culture of deceit. The risk Durham prosecutors run in re-trying Ms. Mangum on the so-called “first degree arson” charge is the possible exposure of the Durham police force’s role in starting the fire. After all it was the Durham police, specifically Officer Tyler, who had the motive, means, and opportunity to set the fire… not Crystal Mangum or her ex-boyfriend.

There was never any doubt in my mind that there would not be a re-trial. Prosecutors were relieved just to get a conviction on the misdemeanor charges, which themselves had no merit. Furthermore, Durham’s Assistant D.A. Mark McCullough should send Mangum’s defense attorney Mani Dexter a couple of dozen roses or a floral bouquet of orchids for her lackluster featherweight defense of her client which allowed prosecutors to prevail on all of the measly misdemeanor charges. The majority of jurors, fortunately, did not have the heart to find Mangum guilty on the felony arson charge, especially when they most likely believed that the police were responsible for the fire. Had Joseph Cheshire been defending Mangum with the gusto he did in the Duke Lacrosse case, Officer Tyler would be charged with arson and felony fraud, the Durham Police chief would have been forced to resign, and all of the officers involved in the case would have been severely sanctioned.

I did not find it surprising that the prosecution would not re-try the case… however, what I did find surprising is that the media would actually cover the story. I never heard it mentioned on WRAL-TV 5 News, ABC-11 News, or NBC 17 News. I searched throughout the deepest recesses of most recent The News & Observer newspaper to see if I could find an article about it tucked away somewhere, but I came up empty. However, that’s what I expect from the media types. So, The Herald-Sun has some kudos coming its way… not only for covering the announcement, but for the photograph used in the online story (which was e-mailed to me). The Mangum photo was a file photo which was taken at a book signing event a couple of years ago, and was one which nicely represented her. What I expected was the usual photo with her shackled and handcuffed in an orange jumpsuit.

The article by Herald-Sun staff writer John McCann followed national media protocol with its obligatory misleading statement “The players were later completely exonerated.” Mr. McCann is not stupid, and neither is the staff at The Herald-Sun, but they think its readers are. This so-called “exoneration” is based solely on Attorney General Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocence Promulgation.” This is a big lie that the biased media has tried to stuff down the public’s throat for years, and it is shameful.

The article also downplays Mangum’s supporter Jackie Wagstaff’s opinions about the criminal charges by writing, “Ms. Wagstaff was of the mindset Mangum never started the fire.” Of course, and there are many people who believe that Mangum did not set the fire… but the media doesn’t want the people to know that. And if Ms. Mangum did not set the fire, then that leaves the police as the likely culprits. What also focuses the light on police as instigators of the fire is that no effort was expended to extinguish the blaze. Police wanted there to be just enough fire damage to the building to support a felony charge. Had police not been responsible for setting the fire they would have reacted like any other reasonable person and at least turned on water in the bathtub.

McCann also documented the following: “The forewoman on that jury said the charges against Mangum seemed too harsh in light of the evidence presented.” That they were and it begs the question, why was she convicted? The three count charge of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” was directly, but convolutedly, tied to the arson charge. Logic is defied by her not being guilty of the arson charge, yet being convicted on the child delinquency charges… and the judge rightfully returned full custody of her children to Ms. Mangum after he declared a mistrial on the only unresolved felony charge. And the media has also stayed away from the alleged damages to the ex-boyfriend’s car. Questions abound as to the number of articles of clothing burned and the owner of clothes placed in the bathtub. This covert operation performed by the Durham police to trump up a felony charge against Ms. Mangum turned out to be a sticky mess from which prosecutors were fortunate to extricate themselves and the men in blue.

What began with a rabid flourish in the media about an attempted first degree murder, identity theft, communicating threats, assault, child abuse and arson slunk out meekly in the dead of night when the final page was turned in this sordid chapter of Tar Heelian justice wherein a young lady who was independent, employed, self-sufficient in raising her three children, and enrolled in graduate school for a master’s degree had her life suddenly and unjustly snatched from her. The volume of the media’s outlet on this subject has been muted by their gradual realization that what was heralded initially as a serious criminal case was more likely than not a piece of fiction that was staged. Phony. 

NOTE: A link is presented below to Part 4 of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper.” Following the strip is a commentary about installment presented.

LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc115.htm


22 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...

Don't forget to experience the commentary that follows the comic strips. This is what helps make "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper" such an educational and enjoyable feature.

kenhyderal said...

Will Crystal's conviction on the delinquency charges and her sentence of "time served" preclude any lawsuit, by her, for the damages she suffered by her imprisonment for the false charges, which she was either aquitted of, or which were dropped.

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal said...
"Will Crystal's conviction on the delinquency charges and her sentence of "time served" preclude any lawsuit, by her, for the damages she suffered by her imprisonment for the false charges, which she was either aquitted of, or which were dropped."

Please enlighten the group and explain what damages Crystal suffered.

kenhyderal said...

What damage? Oh my God! ; several months of incarceration, the setting of an impossible bail, several months of "house arrest", loss of custody of her children, forced separation from them while she out on bail, loss of her job,(in this time of high unemployment), loss of income, loss of her home, interuption of her education, months of negative media coverage impugning her reputation, scurrilous and racist attacks on her and her Family in the "blogosphere"(most notably in "Duke Lacrosse Liestoppers", a blog where lies predominate), inability for her to care for her aged parents when they were sick. (during this time her Father died and Mother had to go to a nursing home. I could go on and this is not to even mention the toll this has taken on her kids being separated from their Mother. This is especially hard for her daughter whose call to 911 in order to save her Mother resulted in this long and difficult ordeal both for them and for her for which the girl understandibly feels she somehow caused this to happen. It's been a massive and costly disruption to this Family.

Nifong Supporter said...

kenhyderal,

You did an excellent job explaining Ms. Mangum's damages and those sustained by her children and family as a result.

With regards to your question, I believe that the fact that she was convicted on the bogus misdemeanor charges and sentenced to time served, precludes her from receiving any compensation in a civil lawsuit. Although the prosecution is pleased at not subjecting the city to financial liability that might result from a civil suit, their biggest relief stems from not having to go to a civil trial and possibly exposing the police's role in the fire. (But I think it would be extremely difficult for her to find an attorney in the state who would in good faith represent her in accordance with her best interests at heart.)

Anonymous said...

"What damage? Oh my God! ; several months of incarceration, the setting of an impossible bail, several months of "house arrest", loss of custody of her children, forced separation from them while she out on bail, loss of her job...."

boo hoo. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

kenhyderal said...

If I'm not mistaken, the Judge instructed the jury that the Delinquency charge was contingent on her being found guilty of the arson charge. Since that did not happen, technically speaking, no crime was committed even though time was served. You know, in any civilized jurisdiction, this case would have been handled the day after the incident in a Magistrates Court and a no contact order issued and, if one party was found guilty of property damage, a restitution order made, with no costly imprisonment, no costly legal proceding, no need to tear apart a Family, no need for social benefits to be made. What happened here is a "crying" shame.

Anonymous said...

Kenhyderal -- You're mistaken. A 12-member jury found Mangum guilty of child abuse, injury to personal property and resisting a public officer.

Anonymous said...

Let's see if I understand.

Although Crystal was found guilty of child abuse and child neglect, she has a claim to recover damages for "loss of custody of her children" and "forced separation from them." In order words, she has a right to be compensated for having been denied the opportunity to do further harm to her children?

And just for good measure, she has a right to recover for "loss of job." Has she held a job in the last five years that did not involve illegal activity on her part?

You really do have your head up your ass.

kenhyderal said...

I can clearly see a major injustice...................... The News & Observer Dec. 16 2010 "Superior Court Judge Abe Jones ruled three charges of contributing to the abuse or neglect of her children would rise and fall on how the jury handled the arson charge. He promised to dismiss the abuse charge if the jury doesn't find Mangum guilty of arson". She spent 303 days under arrest for supposedly damaging some clothing and resisting while being manhandled by police who had entered her home without her permission. "Noxiae poena par esto"-Cicero. And yes, despite your uncharitable innuendo Crystal was steadily employed.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (to Kenhyderal)"

"You really do have your head up your ass."

Kenhyderal reponse:

"I can clearly see a major injustice"

Nifong Supporter said...

The only crime that was committed that night, other than the ones by the authorities, was the physical assault against Ms. Mangum when her ex-boyfriend initiated contact by punching her in the face. However, the police in their gusto to go after Mangum completely ignored it.

Anonymous said...

"And yes, despite your uncharitable innuendo Crystal was steadily employed."

Uncharitable or not, her past activities have been well documented. Since you want us to believe you are privy to all the details of her life, feel free to share her recent employment history with the group.

kenhyderal said...

I am in possession of the facts in this matter and you, sir, are only relying on hearsay.

Kilgo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

My, my, my....


http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/01/26/944403/crystal-mangum-supporters-investigated.html

Published Wed, Jan 26, 2011 04:29 AM
Modified Wed, Jan 26, 2011 12:21 AM
Crystal Mangum supporters investigated

DURHAM The latest chapter in Crystal Mangum's public saga is nearly over.

Prosecutor Mark McCullough this month dismissed the felony arson charge that landed Mangum in the Durham County jail for three months last spring and led to her two-week trial in December. Mangum was convicted of child abuse, vandalism and resisting an officer and sentenced to 88 days of time already served.

The courtroom drama is not quite over, though.

The Durham County Sheriff's Office is investigating Mangum's supporters - a small group of longtime community activists - for alleged witness intimidation in the case. Maj. Paul Martin said he may decide whether to charge anyone next month. He would not say what sort of intimidation may have occurred.

kenhyderal said...

The vendetta goes on.

Nifong Supporter said...

My next blog, to be posted tomorrow, Sunday, January 30, 2011 will be devoted to Major Martin's investigation. Part 5 of Episode V of "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper" will also be uploaded tomorrow.

Nifong Supporter said...

Part 5 of Episode V is now available online. A link will be provided in the blog posted January 30, 2011.

Walt said...

Syd, the players were completely exhonerated. Of course, as innocents, they should never have been subject to Nifong's misguided and unjust prosecution in the first place.

Walt-in-Durham

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
"Syd, the players were completely exhonerated. Of course, as innocents, they should never have been subject to Nifong's misguided and unjust prosecution in the first place.

Walt-in-Durham"


Walt, my question is: Exonerated by whom? As I addressed in the commentary of Part 5 of the comic strip on "Super-Duper Cooper," the attorney general does not have the ability to exonerate anyone... Roy Cooper can no more exonerate anyone than you or I can (unless we do so while sitting on a jury).

Walt said...

"Walt, my question is: Exonerated by whom? As I addressed in the commentary of Part 5 of the comic strip on "Super-Duper Cooper," the attorney general does not have the ability to exonerate anyone... Roy Cooper can no more exonerate anyone than you or I can (unless we do so while sitting on a jury).

Well, there you are wrong. Prosecutors exonerate people all the time. They do so by conducting investigations. When Cooper investigated. He found the obvious, that the players had nothing to do with Crystal's alleged rape. Any competent investigator would have found the same thing. Which of course leads to the inescapable conclusion: Nifong was and is incompetent.

Walt-in-Durham