Word count: 1,588
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012, H. Wood Vann and his client Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser, appeared in Durham’s Superior Court where Mr. Vann argued for a bail reduction from $200,000 to $50,000. I was not present at this event, but from the accounts I have read and comments made to me by eyewitnesses, Mr. Vann put up a spirited attack.
Mr. Vann appropriately stated that Ms. Mangum was no flight risk, was a Durham native, presented no danger to the community, and that she appeared in Court (when under house arrest in the 2010 arson case). Also, he mentioned that Crystal Mangum was defending herself against an intoxicated Daye who kicked in a bathroom door Mangum had locked behind her, and then pulled out some of her hair and hairweave. To his credit, Mr. Vann also brought up the fact that there are questions suggesting that Daye’s death might have been due to treatment he received at Duke University Hospital. He explained to Superior Court Judge Michael Morgan that on the night (Monday, April 4, 2011) after his assault and emergency surgery (Sunday, April 3, 2011) that Mr. Daye was up and walking around and talking to police. Mr. Vann then described that two days later (Wednesday, April 6, 2011) Mr. Daye, who was an alcoholic, went into delirium tremens which preceded a cascade of events, beginning with a bout of emesis (most assuredly induced by the administration of contrast agent into his stomach via a naso-gastric tube), and culminated with his removal from life support and death a week later (Wednesday, April 13, 2011).
According to newspaper accounts, the Durham prosecutor did not refute: 1) that Daye kicked in the bathroom door; 2) that Daye pulled out Mangum’s hair; 3) that Daye was an alcoholic and intoxicated; 4) that Daye’s surgery was successful with an excellent prognosis for a full recovery; and 5) that Daye’s downward spiral to death was directly related to complications from delirium tremens. Instead, Assistant District Attorney Charlene Coggins-Franks gave an irrational, illogical, and unbelievable narrative of events wherein she claimed the two were arguing over cashier’s checks that Ms. Mangum allegedly wouldn’t return to her. The Herald-Sun article even states that the cashier’s checks were given to her - not that she took them. (QUESTION: So, where does larceny fit in in this fantasy scenario conjured up by Coggins-Franks if Reginald Daye gave the checks to Ms. Mangum and she allegedly refused to return them? ANSWER: There is no case for larceny!) Coggins-Franks also admitted during the hearing that Ms. Mangum locked herself in the bathroom, but evidently she did not give an explanation for this action (which was obviously to protect herself from Daye), and then the prosecutor conveniently neglects to mention that Daye was responsible for kicking in the bathroom door!
Prosecutor Coggins-Franks then expects the judge to believe that after an intoxicated Reginald Daye asked Ms. Mangum to leave his apartment (for which he was the sole lessee and who paid the rent) and she refused, that he then decides to leave of his own volition and as he is doing so, Ms. Mangum grabs a knife and stabs him. According to witnesses and Ms. Mangum, the prosecutor stated that he was stabbed in the back. This is a blatantly and factually incorrect statement, as the wound was inflicted to the front-lateral aspect of the chest. There are two possible explanations for this misstatement by Coggins-Franks, which are: (1) She doesn’t know the pertinent facts of this case (possibly due to being overworked or a heavy caseload which have deprived her of time to be knowledgeable about the case), and (2) She purposely attempted to mislead the judge into believing that Mangum stabbed the defenseless and unaware “victim” in the back (a bold attempt to rule out self-defense). Once more, Woody Vann apparently rose to the occasion by rebutting that Mr. Daye was stabbed in the back. To my knowledge Prosecutor Coggins-Franks did not counter the correction made by Mr. Vann.
In another pathetic attempt, Prosecutor Coggins-Franks does her best to shift Daye’s transfer to the Intensive Care Unit from complications related to alcoholic withdrawal to an infection secondary to the stab wound. However, the record clearly shows that concerns by the medical staff were due to impending D.T.s as Daye was given repeated boluses of the sedative Valium intravenously. From the hospital records I have viewed, there was no indication that any cultures were taken or antibiotics given to Daye during his hospitalization. The intention of Coggins-Franks here is again to mislead the Court.
Despite relatively strong arguments by the defense, and weak, illogical and erroneous prosecution statements totally lacking in credibility, the judge refused to reduce bail for Ms. Mangum. If I am not mistaken, every time a hearing has been brought before the Court, a different judge has been sitting on the bench. This leads me to believe that the prosecution spends much of its energies in judge shopping for criminal charges it knows lacks wheels.
Although I was somewhat impressed by Mr. Vann’s performance at this hearing (my expectations were exceedingly low), I still retain questions about his true allegiances. My concerns are due mainly to the following: (1) his refusal to share all prosecution discovery with Mangum… especially the photographs which show her injuries and the crime scene, as they would convey the nature of the abuse and horror to which Mangum was subjected at Daye’s hands and lend to her claim to be a victim of domestic violence; (2) his refusal to turn over to Mangum the report by forensic pathologist Dr. Christena L. Roberts for which Judge Henry Hight ordered the defense expert witness to receive compensation on June 18, 2012 – more than three months ago; (3) his refusal to give his client the mysterious SBI report; (4) his refusal to file a motion to dismiss the ridiculous and baseless “larceny of chose in action” charge which permit the prosecution to up the murder charge to first degree; (5) his pulling punches in his argument for Mangum by protecting Duke University Hospital – laying blame for Daye’s brain death on aspiration rather than the esophageal placement of an endotracheal tube by Duke staff; and (6) his overall lack of urgency and aggressiveness in the face of such bogus and baseless criminal charges. In addition, Mr. Vann has not had adequate communication with Mangum, visiting her on extremely rare occasions. For example, she did not even know that she would be going to court until the morning of the hearing… and she did not know about what the hearing would be.
Personally, I have the impression that the hearing of September 18, 2012, was a staged event, and that it was preordained that bail would be denied to Crystal Mangum. Keep in mind that it is imperative that Mangum remain incarcerated in order for the prosecution to be able to force a plea deal upon her… and that is its ultimate goal. Prosecutor Coggins-Franks cannot take the case to trial because she has no case, and her performance at the hearing was pitiful at best. Defense attorney Vann, on the other hand, did well enough to encourage trust by his client and her supporters – but that is exactly what he wants. A trusting client would be easier for Mr. Vann to persuade to accept a plea deal down the road that would best benefit the prosecution, the medical examiner, and Duke University Hospital… all at the expense of Crystal Mangum who would be saddled with a felony conviction, inability to obtain compensation, and loss of vindication.
If Woody Vann had his client’s best interests at heart, he would refrain from withholding important and probable exculpatory evidence from her, and produce it immediately. The truth behind the evidence that Mr. Vann is withholding from Mangum is enough to have the fraudulent charges against her dismissed.
As The News & Observer editorial’s Our Views column stated in its December 14, 2010 editorial titled “Hide and seek”: “When evidence is hidden that could help a defendant, the justice system is corrupted.”
MEDICAL BOARD COMPLAINT
The fraudulent Autopsy Examination Report of April 14, 2011, by Dr. Clay Nichols, with its fabricated false findings and unsupported conclusion is at the heart of the bogus murder charge against Crystal Mangum, and it is evident it was prepared to prop up the prosecution's case. Dr. Clay Nichols is the Deputy Chief Medical Examiner of the state of North Carolina, and he has a duty to provide accurate, objective, and fair autopsy reports – and not to mold the findings and conclusions to fit the whims of the prosecution… no more so than the SBI lab, which has recently come under scrutiny for its lack of impartiality. This incident which involves the medical examiner is just as damning.
Three weeks ago, I notified the state’s Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Deborah Radisch, about the problems with the April 14, 2011 autopsy report in hopes that another report would be issued to rectify problems with the initial one. Receiving no indication that such movement was forthcoming, on September 19, 2012, I reluctantly mailed, by certified, a formal complaint with the North Carolina Medical Board against Dr. Nichols.
Click on the link below to access the Formal Complaint against Dr. Clay Nichols and the accompanying exhibits.
LINK: http://www.justice4nifong.com/legal/cgm/bk01/bk01direc.htm
230 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 230 of 230Uh oh, Sidney,
Kenny's really upset over your Boo Boo jokes. Add to that the fact that you refuse to help his bosom buddy out of jail, and no wonder you two aren't even speaking to each other.
KENHYDERAL aka Karmen Elmer:
"This garbage is typical of the puerile kind of posts that many of these cowardly anonymous posters waste our time with. They need to grow up. They should also get a user-name so we know who they are."
Consider the adage, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
KENHYDERAL aka Kamen Elmer:
Or is it Malek Williams aka Mud Slug WIsteria?
KENHYDERAL aka Harmen Elmer:
Here's another one. Maybe you would prefer this one:
Kindness Hon-Bun
Glass Houses, KENHYDERAL now aka Kindness Hon-Bun.
KENHYDERAL aka Kindness Hon Bun:
The adage about people in glass houses applies also to people who throw garbage, e.g. SIDNEY HARR aka Starlite Hon Bun and yourself.
KENHYDERAL and SIDNEY HARR
The Hon BUn Brothers
Oooooo, Kenny is about to do his famous hissy fit dance............
So Sidney.......ever gonna man up and explain to us how Mangum got the crap beat out of her without any injuries?
Ok Sidney, why do you insist on lying about Mangum? You have been caught in one lie after another. What is wrong with you? There is no need to lie.
You should be focusing entirely on two issues.......speedy trial for her........and bail money. That's it. You want to be an advocate? Then be one......and stop lying. You are not a lawyer.... You are not a forensic pathologist. You have done nothing positive for Mangum.........nothing. You can though. You can focus on making the public aware of the need for timely trials. And you can at least do what Kenny says he has done........and make a contribution to her bail.
Please stop lying.....
Ever gonna explain to us why Mangum conveniently changed her story about the guys using/not using condoms? AFTER the lab results came in and she KNEW none of their DNA was in or on her? Huh?
Ever gonna explain to us why you insisted that the police started the fire in the Walker case....only to find out, to your shame, that Mangum admitted SHE did it? Ever gonna be man enough to admit you lied? Ever gonna have decency to apologize?
Ever gonna show some class and respect for the dead by admitting you have NO EVIDENCE that Mr. Daye was an alcoholic? By the way, if anybody can be accused of being an alcoholic, it is Crystal Mangum. Being plastered on any given night is NOT an indication of alcoholism. Being plastered every single time she gets herself arrested, is a fairly good marker that she is, at the very least, an alcohol and drug abuser.
Ever gonna explain to us why Mangum lied and said she had sex with only her boyfriend during the week prior to the LAX party......only to have the lab tests show at least FIVE male samples in and on her? None of which were ANY of the LAX guys? Ever gonna admit that a woman who has sex with at least five males, at any given time, is a prostitute or a nymphomaniac?
Sidney, a "couple of drinks" is not enough to make a person stuporous, falling asleep (aka, passing out), slurring words, incoherent and smelling of alcohol.
Try again, sidney....
I will gladly add my voice to the belief that NC needs to have a fair and reasonable speedy trial requirement for all cases. Nobody, including Mangum, should have to wait excessively for their case to come to trial. I mean nobody, sidney.....not just the individuals you hand select as worthy of special treatment.
Lance, I am trying to do some simple research to find out how many states have speedy trial statutes.
From what I have learned so far, the general concensus is that defense lawyers are notorious for causing delays.....NOT prosecutors.
Lance....I found this...
"Our Supreme Court in Spivey stated:
“The right to a speedy trial is different from other constitutional rights in that, among other things, deprivation of a speedy trial does not per se prejudice the ability of the accused to defend himself; it is impossible to determine precisely when the right has been denied; it cannot be said precisely how long a delay is too long; there is no fixed point when the accused is put to a choice of either exercising or waiving his right to a speedy trial; and dismissal of the charges is the only possible remedy for denial of the right to a speedy trial.” State v. McKoy, 294 N.C. 134, 140, 240 S.E.2d 383, 388 (1978).
In Barker v. Wingo, the United States Supreme Court identified four factors that “courts should assess in determining whether a particular defendant has been deprived of his right” to a speedy trial under the federal Constitution. 407 U.S. 514, 530, 33 L.Ed.2d 101, 117 (1972). These factors are: (i) the length of delay, (ii) the reason for delay, (iii) the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and (iv) whether the defendant suffered prejudice as a result of the delay. Id.; see also State v. Flowers, 347 N.C. 1, 27, 489 S.E.2d 391, 406 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1135, 140 L.Ed.2d 150 (1998). “We follow the same analysis when reviewing such claims under Article I, Section 18 of the North Carolina Constitution.” State v. Grooms, 353 N.C. 50, 62, 540 S.E.2d 713, 721 (2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 838, 151 L.Ed.2d 54 (2001).
Spivey, 357 N.C. at 118, 579 S.E.2d at 254 (some emphasis added). The language quoted above: “deprivation of a speedy trial does not per se prejudice the ability of the accused to defend himself[,]” may lead to some understandable confusion, especially as it is followed by the language “dismissal of the charges is the only possible remedy for denial of the right to a speedy trial.” When read in context, we understand these statements to mean that an unwarranted delay does not per se establish a violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. In order to conclude there has been a Sixth Amendment violation of a defendant's right to a speedy trial, the trial court must examine and consider all the Barker factors listed above. Id. at 118, 579 S.E.2d at 254.
I also found a comment about a case in NC where the judge said that, after Oct 1989, the state of NC simply follows the "federal" interpretative guidelines for what constitutes a speedy trial.
J4N member VINCENT CLARK:
Honey Boo Boo names you VIOLET
J4N member JACQUELINE WAGSTAFF:
Honey Boo Boo names you JAZZY
J4N member STEPHEN MATHERLY:
Honey Boo Boo names you SEXUOUS MAVERICK
J4N member VIKKI MATHERLY:
Honey Boo Boo names you Velma Mini-Belle
Group of 88er KARLA HOLLOWAY:
Honey Boo BOo names you Kaleigha Hammy
Farm Animal HOUSTON BAKER:
Honey Boo BOo names you Harley Bunny
Group of 88er, Listening statement author, perpetually forthcoming Wahneema Lubiano:
Honey Boo Boo names you Wisteria Lala.
Wicked WENDY MURPHY:
Honey Boo Boo names you Woo Woo Meltdown
NANCY (dis)GRACE:
Honey Boo Boo names you Noodle Goober
Honey Boo Boo names LAST DANCE FOR GRACE Lacie Frosting.
Group of 88er Grant Farred:
Honey Boo Boo names you Gum Fairy
KILGO, who styles himself the Great Kilgo:
Honey Boo Boo names you Gum Kewpie
the inappropriately named JUSTICE 58, who has disappeared from J4N:
Honey Boo Boo names you Jayla Fluffy
Dear Kenny, please note that it was your soulmate who first introduced the readers here to Honey BooBoo....whatever the bleepin' heck it is. Poor sidney had a little personal meltdown and made one of his infamous snappy comebacks to a poster who had apparently managed to make sidney get his shorts all bunched up in a knot.
so, if you want to have one of your moral seizures, I'd suggest to smack down the bro-in-chief.
Thanks for the citations, Anonymous @6:43 AM...
A quick scan of the "4 factors" defined in Barker v. Wingo would indicate to me that Crystal could probably have a good argument for 2 of the 4....She has been in jail for over a year, and I'm not aware Crystal agreeing to a delay at any time. On the other hand, changing attorneys (and Sid's constant intrusion) has surely contributed to the delay. I think it would be difficult to quantify any prejudice the delay has caused.
If anything, moving further away from the death of Reginald Daye is only more beneficial for Crystal Mangum, were the case every come to a jury trial.
If you don't mind, I'm going to copy and paste your post on the new thread -- Sid had asked to see it, and I don't think he reviews the posts on old blogs.
sure......lance. feel free.
I'm actually jealous of Matherly's boo boo name...
Post a Comment