Sunday, June 3, 2018

Problematic Larceny of Chose in Action charge: Part One

76 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wy did you delete my comments?

Anonymous said...

This doesn't open. Can you provide a transcript?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney, what is happening with the Walker testimony reversal?

June 2, 2018 at 4:48 PM


Nothing has happened with the MAR filed regarding new evidence and the phone call. Mangum has not heard from the court. I went to the court and was told that the Senior Resident Judge Orlando Hudson has not taken any action on it... evidently that ball is in his court.

Crystal did write a letter to Erik Hooks, the Secretary for the Department of Public Safety and requested that he make sure that the audio recording of the conversation was preserved and sought for him to provide her with a copy. It's probably a bit early to hear back from him.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Is it still going to pretend that the Larceny of Chose in Action was there for felony murder?

You still gonna show how you refuse to learn?


June 2, 2018 at 7:07 AM


What you have failed to demonstrate is why the larceny charge was ever filed; and you have failed to give an explanation for the State filing it only after Daye died. Had the larceny charge been filed on its merits, then it would have been filed initially along with the assault with a deadly weapon charge. Felony-murder rule is the only logical reason for the State obtaining that indictment of larceny and the timing of the charge.

Nifong Supporter said...


HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

First of all, haste makes waste. I really had trouble posting this sharlog because of rushing to get it available for viewers. I even got mixed up on my usual format... but I'm not going to correct it. Just use comments on the Part One section.

Posting a transcript is doable, but there is much for me to do right now, and I can't afford the time. I apologize for this inconvenience. If I find a bit of time, I will make an effort to upload it.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

Is there anything new in this? Have you responded to my answers to your questions on the last thread? Have you refined your arguments or have you simply repeated what you have argued in the past? Unless there is something new, I don't want to waste 46 minutes listening to you rehash arguments I don't find compelling.

Anonymous said...

Sidney,

Tell us about your new WRAL lawsuit. Is this a lawsuit based on a new allegation of slander or is this a repeat of your first WRAL lawsuit. If it the latter, have you refined your claims?

If it is a repeat of the first lawsuit, I would not be surprised if WRAL countersued for their legal fees. As you learned in Harr I, Harr II and Harr III, once a court has dismissed your claim, you are not permitted to refile the same claim. The same rule applies in state courts, not just Federal courts. I hope you addressed the doctrine of res judicata in your filing. With Harr II and Harr III, you simply declared that it didn't apply to you because the court dismissed your claims and did not permit a trial. If I were WRAL, I would take the position that you have already been told that your opinion is frivolous and the fine the Federal court imposed was insufficient for you to learn that you cannot play games with the court system.

Anonymous said...

Felony Murder Rule is not logical, because it's not legal. That would be like me suing Duke to make you pay me money.

You really are delusional.

But, I was right - you were going to keep claiming it, proving you have no intention of learning. This is all to feed your ego and to make Crystal think you are helping her, when in fact you are doing nothing of the sort.

Anonymous said...

Sid has chosen to produce "shallots" using an obsolete technology that many of his readers don't have immediately available because he likes to hear himself talk.

He doesn't really care if no one listens to the sharlog and the format makes commenting extraordinarily difficult.

This is an exercise in amusing Sidney, not in helping Crystal.

Anonymous said...

I listened to the first part of this sharlog.

The first part of the sharlog is a repeat of the same recitation of the events that culminated with Daye's death, including a detailed discussion of the esophageal intubation.

At the end of the first part, Sidney provides a more detailed discussion of the trial. He spends time detailing the plea offer that Meier has denied was offered by the prosecution.

Meier made a motion for dismissal of the larceny charges, arguing that the elements were not met. There is agreement by all parties that Daye gave Magnum the checks for safekeeping. The prosecution's theory is that Mangum's failure to return the checks (as maintained by the prosecution and accepted by Meier, but denied by Sidney) constitutes the illegal taking. Meier disagreed with this theory. Judge Ridgeway denied the motion, providing one case to support the ruling. Sidney disagrees with this ruling and argues that the case is not on point.

Sidney emphasizes that the prosecution made no mention of the larceny charges during its opening statement and closing statement and placed little emphasis on the larceny charges during the testimony. The prosecution obviously did not emphasize this charge during the trial, acting almost as though this charge was a throw away charge.

There is no new information or new argument included in first part of the sharlog. My recommendation is that all readers should skip the first part of the sharlog. It is a waste of approximately 25 minutes (there are so many proceed buttons that it will require more than the stated time).

Anonymous said...

I have now listened to the second part of the sharlog.

This sharlog is deeply dishonest.

He starts with a review of the appeal process and the writ of habeas corpus. Sidney begins with a complaint that Petersen failed to file an appeal based on the court's failure to dismiss the larceny charges of which Magnum was found not guilty. The failure to appeal an acquittal is an interesting complaint.

The federal court dismissed this specific complaint based on fact that Magnum was acquitted of that charge, noting that a writ can cover only a conviction. Sidney rants about this dismissal, arguing that the complaint was broader.

Sidney maintains, with absolutely no evidence, but only his speculation, that Bond committed perjury in her testimony.

First, he argues that the checks could not have been stolen from Days because Days could have had them re-issued and thus to Date have no value. Therefore, there can be no act of stealing. He asks the question whether there is a case that addresses the question of whether there can be a theft of an item with no value.

Second, he argues that Dyte originally told the policeman prior to the stabbing that Magnum would not give his checks back, but he was not going to pursue charges, that he thus could not be a complaining witness.

Third, the failure of the DA to charge Magnum with larceny immediately upon her arrest constitutes proof that the charges were invalid. The grand jury indicted her only after Daye's death.

Fourth, the court failed to dismiss the charges.(As I recall, NC law does not provide for hearing a motion for the dismissal of charges before trial. Judge Ridgeway issued a ruling that Sidney disagrees with.

Fifth, the fact that the prosecutors did not argue the larceny charges during the showed that it had a collateral purpose.

Sixth, Sidney alleges that Bond must have committed perjury in her grand jury testimony. This requires a belief that she must have provided testimony that contradicted her testimony in the criminal trial and contradicted the theory applied by the prosecution in that trial. Judge Ridgeway's ruling upholding the merit of that theory should be ignored.

Seventh, because Sidney has alleged that Bond committed perjury in her grand jury trial (albeit with no evidence), Bond is a tainted witness and Magnum must be released. Sidney provides no case law to support this conclusion. Nevertheless, he criticizes the failure of Mangum's counsel to pursue this legal theory.

He does not address the felony murder rule.

He ends with criticism of the media coverage (or lack of coverage) of Mangum's case and filings and a comparison of Bond with a Wake County Sheriff Deputy who was fired for perjury.

I recommend that all readers skip listening to this part of the sharlog as well. It is also a waste of time.



Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:14 and 12:46:

Thanks. I will take your advice.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
I have now listened to the second part of the sharlog.

This sharlog is deeply dishonest.

He starts with a review of the appeal process and the writ of habeas corpus. Sidney begins with a complaint that Petersen failed to file an appeal based on the court's failure to dismiss the larceny charges of which Magnum was found not guilty. The failure to appeal an acquittal is an interesting complaint.

.... [testimony deleted to meet maximum character limit]

Fourth, the court failed to dismiss the charges.(As I recall, NC law does not provide for hearing a motion for the dismissal of charges before trial. Judge Ridgeway issued a ruling that Sidney disagrees with.

Fifth, the fact that the prosecutors did not argue the larceny charges during the showed that it had a collateral purpose.

Sixth, Sidney alleges that Bond must have committed perjury in her grand jury testimony. This requires a belief that she must have provided testimony that contradicted her testimony in the criminal trial and contradicted the theory applied by the prosecution in that trial. Judge Ridgeway's ruling upholding the merit of that theory should be ignored.

Seventh, because Sidney has alleged that Bond committed perjury in her grand jury trial (albeit with no evidence), Bond is a tainted witness and Magnum must be released. Sidney provides no case law to support this conclusion. Nevertheless, he criticizes the failure of Mangum's counsel to pursue this legal theory.

He does not address the felony murder rule.

He ends with criticism of the media coverage (or lack of coverage) of Mangum's case and filings and a comparison of Bond with a Wake County Sheriff Deputy who was fired for perjury.

I recommend that all readers skip listening to this part of the sharlog as well. It is also a waste of time.




June 3, 2018 at 12:56 PM


Actually, the sharlog is quite accurate... no enlightenment on the issue being available in the mainstream media.

What Appellate Defense Attorney Petersen failed to do regarding the Larceny charge is to bring up on Direct Appeal that the charge lacked probable cause. Because Bond was the sole witness for the State before the Grand Jury, the only deduction that can be made is that Bond gave false testimony for the jury to hand up an indictment on that charge. No other explanation.

The first point restated what I maintain. There is no way that a person can be charged for stealing something totally without value. For example, if a person steals or illegally takes an outdated movie stub from a person, that thievery is not actionable... by common sense. To the point, is there a case in the annals of jurisprudence where a person is charged with stealing a cashier's check from a remitter? I don't think so...!

Point two restated the obvious, again... however, Daye told the police that Mangum stole his money, not cashier's checks. Had Daye told the officer that Mangum stole his cashier's checks, the officer would have thought Daye to be crazy.

Point three restated the obvious; however, on point four Judge Ridgeway's analysis, in not dismissing the larceny charge, was irrelevant as the case law he cited (State v. Tilley) had more than one defendant and tangible property of value was stolen and illegally taken.

Points five and six have been answered.

The seventh point, regarding the impeached grand jury testimony of Bond, is solid grounds for all of her testimony to be discarded... including that for the murder charge. Because she was the sole witness before the Grand Jury, Mangum's conviction should be overturned.

Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Felony Murder Rule is not logical, because it's not legal. That would be like me suing Duke to make you pay me money.

You really are delusional.

But, I was right - you were going to keep claiming it, proving you have no intention of learning. This is all to feed your ego and to make Crystal think you are helping her, when in fact you are doing nothing of the sort.


June 3, 2018 at 10:00 AM


The Larceny of Chose in Action was not filed immediately along with the Assault with a deadly weapon charge. More than two weeks later, after Daye died by Duke University Hospital malpractice, Mangum was charge with Larceny of Chose in Action along with murder.

There is a reason that the larceny charge was filed when it was... after Daye died. It was for the collateral purpose of elevating the murder charge to first degree. It makes sense. Though you don't want to accept it, you are not able to provide another reason that is as logical. Until I hear a reasonable reason why the larceny charge was not filed initially but filed later, then I will support the "felony-murder rule" as the ulterior motive for the Larceny of Chose in Action charge.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney,

Tell us about your new WRAL lawsuit. Is this a lawsuit based on a new allegation of slander or is this a repeat of your first WRAL lawsuit. If it the latter, have you refined your claims?

If it is a repeat of the first lawsuit, I would not be surprised if WRAL countersued for their legal fees. As you learned in Harr I, Harr II and Harr III, once a court has dismissed your claim, you are not permitted to refile the same claim. The same rule applies in state courts, not just Federal courts. I hope you addressed the doctrine of res judicata in your filing. With Harr II and Harr III, you simply declared that it didn't apply to you because the court dismissed your claims and did not permit a trial. If I were WRAL, I would take the position that you have already been told that your opinion is frivolous and the fine the Federal court imposed was insufficient for you to learn that you cannot play games with the court system.

June 3, 2018 at 9:18 AM


Hah! Don't make me laugh. WRAL-5 News and all the other media avoided doing a story about the libel lawsuit a year ago. The only reason that you know about it is because you read it on this blog site. Same thing goes with my lawsuit against Wake County D.A. Lorrin Freeman... the media doesn't want the people to know about it.

Hope that answers your questions.

Anonymous said...

You didn't answer the question regarding WRAL.

Is it based on a new allegation of slander, or is this a repeat of your first lawsuit?

Anonymous said...


Of course Sid's lawsuit isn't based on new allegations.

Sid is like my cat. Once he gets an idea in his head that he is going to do something he will not be disabused of that notion, no matter how many times I spray him with water, shoo him away or even swat him. However, my cat eventually learns from its past experiences. Sid, not so much.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Abe Supporter said...

Udaman Abe.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course Sid's lawsuit isn't based on new allegations.

Sid is like my cat. Once he gets an idea in his head that he is going to do something he will not be disabused of that notion, no matter how many times I spray him with water, shoo him away or even swat him. However, my cat eventually learns from its past experiences. Sid, not so much.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

June 4, 2018 at 2:21 PM


Hah, Abe. So you're a cat person, too? I used to own five cats many years ago. None now... too busy.

Anyway, regarding my lawsuit against WRAL, yeah, it is basically the same.

But, why not address the Larceny of Chose in Action case and its implications.

For example, do you believe that Officer Bond should be held accountable for her false testimony before the Grand Jury... do you agree with me that her statements under oath were more egregious than those of Deputy Robert Davis... do you believe that Bond will be prosecuted for perjured testimony and/or witness tampering?

Anonymous said...

Sid,

Why did you delete my comment? It was not salacious or inflammatory. It simply made a critical observation about you and your sharlogs.

It seems as though you are very thin skinned these days.

Anonymous said...

"... do you believe that Officer Bond should be held accountable for her false testimony before the Grand Jury"

Do you have a transcript of this false testimony? Post it so we can evaluate it.

I generally need proof that someone's done something before I consider holding them accountable for it.

Don't you?

Anonymous said...

1. I do not believe Officer Bond committed perjury. On the last thread, I explained what I believed her testimony to have been. Twice. You ignored that explanation. Twice.

2. You falsely claimed there is "no" other explanation than the one you provided. You lied. the fact that you ignore an explanation does not mean that the explanation does not exist. While I concede that I cannot prove my explanation is correct, I note that I am not trying to convince the courts to overturn a prior decision. You are.

3. You have engaged in pure speculation that Bond committed perjury and have provided no evidence to support your speculation. Because there is no transcript or recording of the grand jury proceedings, I do not see how you can possibly prove that your speculation has merit. Your speculation alone is insufficient to provide probable cause the Bond committed perjury. There will be no investigation, let alone a trial.

4. Because I do not believe Bond committed perjury, I do not believe that her testimony was "egregious." I believe that your speculation is unreasonable.

5. I do not believe Bond will be prosecuted for perjury. I do not believe that she committed perjury. You have provided no evidence of your speculation. Prosecution should not be based on speculation alone.

6. Neither you nor Crystal is credible. I will defer any prediction on possible witness tampering until I have seen credible evidence. (I am also not sure that Milton Walker is credible.)

7. You have a tendency to file incomplete motions. You provide facts and/or allegations. You then merely state your opinion regarding the law and expect the court to accede to your demands, or failing that, to grant a trial. You provide no case law to support your legal opinions. You refuse even to respond to the arguments your adversary makes in their filings, but simply repeat your narrative and opinions. What was called "master debating" on this website is not an effective debate tactic. It is useless in legal filings.

The malicious prosecution lawsuit is frivolous for the reasons I have provided earlier. You have chosen not to response to those reasons, but merely to repeat your allegations and opinions.

I will not comment on this lawsuit again unless you begin to engage in an honest discussion, which includes honest discussion of posters' responses to your questions and comments (and not caricatures of those responses). I do not believe you are willing or able to engage in honest discussion.

kenhyderal said...

Is that you JSwift?

Anonymous said...


Sid said,

"But, why not address the Larceny of Chose in Action case and its implications.

For example, do you believe that Officer Bond should be held accountable for her false testimony before the Grand Jury... do you agree with me that her statements under oath were more egregious than those of Deputy Robert Davis... do you believe that Bond will be prosecuted for perjured testimony and/or witness tampering?"

I agree with Anonymous on June 5, 2018 at 9:12 AM. There is no evidence of perjury, just your speculation and conjecture. No sausage for you.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

Funny that Sid asks people why they don't address certain things, yet he refuses to address a lot of issues people bring up. Plus, all of the issues Sid asks why people don't address - they have, they just disagree with him, so he ignores it.

At this point, Sid's intentions are clear - this is all emotional manipulation/abuse of Crystal - who Sid is openly talking about marrying. Sid knows his lawsuits have no chance, but he gets to keep going to Crystal, just like a cult leader, and pretend the he's the only one fighting for her.

It's classic cultish/abuser behavior - isolate the person, get them to trust no one else, make them think you are the only one on their side, take actions that look like you are fighting for them.

Crystal is emotionally vulnerable, and sadly Sid is taking advantage of that for his own purposes. There is no other point to this Blog or his actions.

Shame on you Sid. (And yes, I am sure he will delete this post - he can't handle the truth.)

Nifong Supporter said...



Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid,

Why did you delete my comment? It was not salacious or inflammatory. It simply made a critical observation about you and your sharlogs.

It seems as though you are very thin skinned these days.

June 5, 2018 at 8:59 AM


Thin-skinned I'm not. If your comment was not in violation of the kenhyderal Doctrine, then re-submit it. Since it is not available to view I can't tell you why it was deleted. There's always the possibility that it could have been deleted accidentally.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

Will you delete the comment posted at 4:39?

Anonymous said...

Sid -- You know what would really help Crystal?

Get
Kim Kardashian to advocate for her.

Boom!
You're welcome.

Anonymous said...

"WRAL-5 News and all the other media avoided doing a story about the libel lawsuit a year ago..."

Should "WRAL-5 News and all the other media" do stories on all lawsuits where the plaintiff failed to make proof of service and the lawsuit ended up being dismissed?

If not, why should they do a story about your lawsuit that was dismissed because you failed to make proof of service?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
"WRAL-5 News and all the other media avoided doing a story about the libel lawsuit a year ago..."

Should "WRAL-5 News and all the other media" do stories on all lawsuits where the plaintiff failed to make proof of service and the lawsuit ended up being dismissed?

If not, why should they do a story about your lawsuit that was dismissed because you failed to make proof of service?

June 6, 2018 at 11:43 AM


My libel lawsuit against WRAL-5 News was dismissed by Judge Bryan Collins, who did not provide any opinion or reason for the dismissal. In my opinion, his ruling was biased against me.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid -- You know what would really help Crystal?

Get
Kim Kardashian to advocate for her.

Boom!
You're welcome.

June 6, 2018 at 11:02 AM


Hah. The thought did cross my mind. Can you imagine how many hundreds and thousands of people are appealing to Kim Kardashian West seeking her advocacy?

But, thanks for the suggestion.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Funny that Sid asks people why they don't address certain things, yet he refuses to address a lot of issues people bring up. Plus, all of the issues Sid asks why people don't address - they have, they just disagree with him, so he ignores it.

At this point, Sid's intentions are clear - this is all emotional manipulation/abuse of Crystal - who Sid is openly talking about marrying. Sid knows his lawsuits have no chance, but he gets to keep going to Crystal, just like a cult leader, and pretend the he's the only one fighting for her.

It's classic cultish/abuser behavior - isolate the person, get them to trust no one else, make them think you are the only one on their side, take actions that look like you are fighting for them.

Crystal is emotionally vulnerable, and sadly Sid is taking advantage of that for his own purposes. There is no other point to this Blog or his actions.

Shame on you Sid. (And yes, I am sure he will delete this post - he can't handle the truth.)

June 6, 2018 at 4:39 AM


Anony, I have no intention of deleting this comment as it is well within the standards of decency established by the kenhyderal Doctrine.

First, I have not isolated Crystal... the State with the media's help did that.

Secondly, I have tried my best to engage others to help Crystal... having mailed more than five hundred letters and packets to politicians, government officials, clergy, civil rights leaders and organizations.

I have no reason or desire to seek cult status. What I seek for Crystal Mangum is justice... justice being her liberty and exoneration.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...

Sid said,

"But, why not address the Larceny of Chose in Action case and its implications.

For example, do you believe that Officer Bond should be held accountable for her false testimony before the Grand Jury... do you agree with me that her statements under oath were more egregious than those of Deputy Robert Davis... do you believe that Bond will be prosecuted for perjured testimony and/or witness tampering?"

I agree with Anonymous on June 5, 2018 at 9:12 AM. There is no evidence of perjury, just your speculation and conjecture. No sausage for you.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

June 6, 2018 at 4:15 AM


Hey, Abe.

Yes, it is true that I have no hard evidence that Officer Marianne Bond committed perjury before the Grand Jury because I have no access to the transcript of that hearing... if one exists.

However, how else do you explain the Grand Jury indicting Mangum for Larceny of Chose in Action? Consider that Bond was the only witness before the Grand Jury... so that eliminates perjury by another party. Consider also that Bond had bona fide evidence in Daye's interview statements that he gave Mangum the two cashier's checks. It doesn't even take Sherlockian deduction to deduce that Bond committed perjury.

Can you provide a scenario where Bond truthfully testified before the Grand Jury with the Grand Jury returning an indictment of Larceny of Chose in Action?

Anonymous said...

This question has been answered previously.

Sid Supporter said...

Udaman Sid.

Anonymous said...


I have no idea what Officer Bond said, but I imagine she testified that Daye told her he gave Mangum the checks to hold. They later had an argument over, among other things, the checks. He asked for the checks back. Mangum refused to return them to him. Mangum left the apartment with the checks and the checks were in her possession. That is probably sufficient to support an indictment.

You realize that the larceny charge was dismissed, don't you, and that it has no bearing on Mangum's murder conviction? Why are you still arguing about it?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Sid Supporter said...

Abe,

Why are you badgering Sid?

Dr. Caligari said...

You realize that the larceny charge was dismissed, don't you, and that it has no bearing on Mangum's murder conviction? Why are you still arguing about it?

Because Dr. Harr thinks that, if he can show there was perjury by the sole witness before the grand jury, the whole indictment gets thrown out. I, and others, have explained to him that it doesn't work that way:

(1) If the indictment was regular on its face, then the trial was valid, and the verdict cannot be set aside post-trial based on irregularities before the grand jury.

(2) Even if point 1 were false (and it's not), the only way to set aside a criminal conviction is by an appeal, an MAR or a federal habeas corpus petition, not by a suit for malicious prosecution.

(3) Even if points 1 and 2 were both false (and they're both true), a suit seeking Mangum's release would have to be brought against the warden of the prison where she's being held, or against the State of North Carolina. The District Attorney's office is not holding Mangum in custody and therefore has no power to release her.

Anonymous said...

"My libel lawsuit against WRAL-5 News was dismissed by Judge Bryan Collins, who did not provide any opinion or reason for the dismissal..."

My bad Sid -- I was looking at the original lawsuit (the one you eventually dropped WRAL and James Goodmon from).

I'll not here that the lawsuit against Fix-The-Court was dismissed. I don't think you've ever mentioned that

Anonymous said...

Dr. Caligari,

You are a pompous blowhard. Stop badgering Sid. Don’t you have something better to do with your time?

Anonymous said...

What's funny - it was repeatedly explained to Sid that they don't provide a basis for their Motions to Dismiss. Once again, he refuses to listen/learn. Also, unless there is new defamation, this lawsuit will get dismissed, as the proper remedy is appeal, not filing a new lawsuit.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
"My libel lawsuit against WRAL-5 News was dismissed by Judge Bryan Collins, who did not provide any opinion or reason for the dismissal..."

My bad Sid -- I was looking at the original lawsuit (the one you eventually dropped WRAL and James Goodmon from).

I'll not here that the lawsuit against Fix-The-Court was dismissed. I don't think you've ever mentioned that

June 7, 2018 at 1:00 PM


I dropped WRAL-5 News and James Goodmon from the federal lawsuit because I could not place them as defendants with Fix-the-Court.

The Federal Court would not accept the Return Receipt as service, and I spent more than $200.00 trying to serve Gabe who dodged service in Washington, DC and Chicago and Brooklyn...

And because I wasn't able to serve him, the Court dismissed, without prejudice.

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
You realize that the larceny charge was dismissed, don't you, and that it has no bearing on Mangum's murder conviction? Why are you still arguing about it?

Because Dr. Harr thinks that, if he can show there was perjury by the sole witness before the grand jury, the whole indictment gets thrown out. I, and others, have explained to him that it doesn't work that way:

(1) If the indictment was regular on its face, then the trial was valid, and the verdict cannot be set aside post-trial based on irregularities before the grand jury.

(2) Even if point 1 were false (and it's not), the only way to set aside a criminal conviction is by an appeal, an MAR or a federal habeas corpus petition, not by a suit for malicious prosecution.

(3) Even if points 1 and 2 were both false (and they're both true), a suit seeking Mangum's release would have to be brought against the warden of the prison where she's being held, or against the State of North Carolina. The District Attorney's office is not holding Mangum in custody and therefore has no power to release her.

June 7, 2018 at 12:07 PM


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

I hear your position on the issues, but I respectfully don't agree with them. I am of the belief that an impeached witness's testimony on one issue or charge taints the entirety of his/her testimony. Officer Marianne Bond is an impeached witness on the larceny charge which makes her testimony on the murder charge before the Grand Jury suspect and not credible as well. I believe that is a maxim.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have no idea what Officer Bond said, but I imagine she testified that Daye told her he gave Mangum the checks to hold. They later had an argument over, among other things, the checks. He asked for the checks back. Mangum refused to return them to him. Mangum left the apartment with the checks and the checks were in her possession. That is probably sufficient to support an indictment.

You realize that the larceny charge was dismissed, don't you, and that it has no bearing on Mangum's murder conviction? Why are you still arguing about it?

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


June 7, 2018 at 7:12 AM


Hey, Abe.

First of all, the Larceny of Chose in Action charge was never dismissed... although Mangum made multiple attempts pre-trial and Meier argued for it to be dismissed after the prosecution presented its case. The larceny charge was in play when the case went to the trial jury for deliberation. The verdict on that charge was not guilty... which laid the groundwork for the malicious prosecution charge.

Secondly, Daye never asked Mangum for the cashier's checks to be returned. That's some improvisation by Meier, Mangum's turncoat attorney... undermining her at every turn. Had Daye demanded the return of the checks Mangum would've given them up immediately. They were of no use to her.

As far as the checks go, they were at all times in her purse. She never removed them from her purse, and when she fled the terror meted out by Daye, she grabbed her purse... which was a reasonable action.

Sid Supporter said...

Udaman Sid.

Anonymous said...

Did Daye tell Officer Bond that he had asked Magnum to return the checks? If so, Bond probably testified about what Daye told her. Whether or not Daye's allegation is correct is a fact to be determined by the jury at trial. There is no perjury.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Did Daye tell Officer Bond that he had asked Magnum to return the checks? If so, Bond probably testified about what Daye told her. Whether or not Daye's allegation is correct is a fact to be determined by the jury at trial. There is no perjury.


June 9, 2018 at 6:14 AM


Actually, whether or not Daye told Bond that he asked Crystal to return the two cashier's checks is totally irrelevant. The fact is that he told Bond that he gave the two cashier's checks to Crystal in the first place.

Failure to return something that someone has given you is not the same as stealing. That's the point I have tried to make. There's no getting around the fact that Daye gave the cashier's checks to Mangum. The indictment on the Larceny of Chose in Action is groundless.

Consider yourself elucidated.

Anonymous said...

A judge ruled against that theory. No perjury.

Sid Supporter said...

Udaman Sid.

Anonymous said...

Sidney states: Actually, whether or not Daye told Bond that he asked Crystal to return the two cashier's checks is totally irrelevant.

We are discussing perjury. What Daye told Bond is directly relevant to a determination of whether Bond committed perjury. Whether the grand jury misinterpreted the law is NOT relevant to a determination of perjury.

Moreover, a judge ruled against your theory.

Try again.

Anonymous said...

Please post Bond's response.

Dr. Caligari said...

Hey, Dr. Caligari.

I hear your position on the issues, but I respectfully don't agree with them.


Whether you agree or not doesn't matter; it's whether the court agrees. Can you cite any case law to support your opinion? If not, you're (once again) wasting your time and doing Mangum no favors.

Sid Supporter said...

Dr. Caligari,

You don't understand how Sid believes the justice system is supposed to work. Sid believes that he merely is required to state his opinion, and the court is required to accept his demand (or, failing that, to order a new trial) unless the court can prove that his opinion cannot possibly be correct. Because courts make mistakes, case law is not relevant in any proof that Sid cannot possibly be correct.

Sid Supporter Supporter said...

Udaman Sid Supporter.

kenhyderal supporter said...

Where is my main man Ken?

Anonymous said...

Sidney said: "If I was a betting man, I would say that Crystal will be released within two months from today, if not sooner.
April 27, 2018 at 4:35 AM"

Eighteen days to go. Those crying towels are starting to get dry rot.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney said: "If I was a betting man, I would say that Crystal will be released within two months from today, if not sooner.
April 27, 2018 at 4:35 AM"

Eighteen days to go. Those crying towels are starting to get dry rot.

June 9, 2018 at 11:48 AM


I still believe that I'm not far off in that prediction. However, when I made it, I may have been under the impression that the service of the civil complaints had been accepted by the Court. Basically, what I am counting on is court action to be the impetus that will free Crystal.

Keep the crying towels at hand.

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
Hey, Dr. Caligari.

I hear your position on the issues, but I respectfully don't agree with them.

Whether you agree or not doesn't matter; it's whether the court agrees. Can you cite any case law to support your opinion? If not, you're (once again) wasting your time and doing Mangum no favors.

June 9, 2018 at 7:41 AM


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

There is plenty of case law to support Crystal's Malicious Prosecution case... one being Bell v. Pearcy. There are several more citations in Mangum's brief in which she seeks a Summary Judgment in the Bond case. The strength of Mangum's case is evident from the pitiful and weak response by Bond's attorney. I will post the Bond response along with Mangum's Motion for Summary Judgment as soon as I can... but I have a video I need to prepare immediately for YouTube posting. Hope to have it completed by Monday.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Please post Bond's response.

June 9, 2018 at 7:10 AM


Anony, I will try to post Bond's Response/Motion to Dismiss and Mangum's Summary for Summary Judgment by mid-week... Wednesday or Thursday.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sidney states: Actually, whether or not Daye told Bond that he asked Crystal to return the two cashier's checks is totally irrelevant.

We are discussing perjury. What Daye told Bond is directly relevant to a determination of whether Bond committed perjury. Whether the grand jury misinterpreted the law is NOT relevant to a determination of perjury.

Moreover, a judge ruled against your theory.

Try again.

June 9, 2018 at 6:44 AM


Bond was aware that Daye gave Mangum the two cashier's checks, and she had no proof to the contrary, ergo there is definitely a lack of probable cause in the Larceny of Chose in Action indictment.

For the Grand Jury, relying on testimony under oath by a sole witness, Bond, to conclude that Mangum feloniously took and carried away two cashier's checks clearly is indicative to an almost absolute certainty, that Bond's testimony before the jury was false.

Anonymous said...

"Almost" only counts in 2 things Sid, and the law is not one of them.

consider yourself elucidated.

Dr. Caligari said...

There is plenty of case law to support Crystal's Malicious Prosecution case... one being Bell v. Pearcy.

Bell v. Pearcy, even if it is still good law (it's an 1844 case), does nothing to help Mangum's suit. The key issue you keep ignoring is that malicious prosecution of one count, even if you could prove it (and Bell suggest you can't-- note that it reverses a verdict for the plaintiff), does not invalidate a conviction on another count. You need case law that says that (1) perjury before the grand jury (assuming you could prove it) invalidates a subsequent conviction at trial on a different charge, and (2) that a malicious prosecution suit is a proper vehicle for overturning a criminal conviction. I'll bet $100 that you have no case law to support either of those propositions. I'll bet another $100 that you can't overcome the statute of limitations.

I'd suggest that you keep your crying towel ready.

Sid Supporter said...

Dr. Caligari,

Why do you continue to badger Sid? Isn’t there something more useful that you can do with your time?

Anonymous said...

Where is the little man?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Caligari says:

"I'll bet $100 that you have no case law to support either of those propositions."

Can Sidney's suit become case law? Meaning if he won then this suit becomes case law for future suits.

guiowen said...

Don't worry -- in January, as soon as Satana Deberry takes over -- Sidney will have a long conversation with her and get Crystal out.

Doogie Howser said...

Dr. Harr,

Who is the “little man” referred to by the other poster?

guiowen said...

The little man is currently hiding because we're lying in wait for him.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Don't worry -- in January, as soon as Satana Deberry takes over -- Sidney will have a long conversation with her and get Crystal out.

June 12, 2018 at 8:55 AM


gui, mon ami,

I have little faith in Satana Deberry... not only because she's a Duke University Law School alum, but because she doesn't want to get involved until she's in office. Don't have that much respect for someone in her position who hasn't even the curiosity to immediately learn about a case wherein an innocent mother of three is possibly wrongly incarcerated. Besides, I am hopeful that Crystal will be free long before Deberry takes her oath of office.

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
There is plenty of case law to support Crystal's Malicious Prosecution case... one being Bell v. Pearcy.

Bell v. Pearcy, even if it is still good law (it's an 1844 case), does nothing to help Mangum's suit. The key issue you keep ignoring is that malicious prosecution of one count, even if you could prove it (and Bell suggest you can't-- note that it reverses a verdict for the plaintiff), does not invalidate a conviction on another count. You need case law that says that (1) perjury before the grand jury (assuming you could prove it) invalidates a subsequent conviction at trial on a different charge, and (2) that a malicious prosecution suit is a proper vehicle for overturning a criminal conviction. I'll bet $100 that you have no case law to support either of those propositions. I'll bet another $100 that you can't overcome the statute of limitations.

I'd suggest that you keep your crying towel ready.

June 10, 2018 at 6:52 PM


Dr. Caligari, what a favorable Malicious Prosecution ruling in civil court does is definitely lay groundwork for amending a wrongful criminal conviction. What makes this case so unique with regards to the two charges is that Officer Marianne Bond is the only witness before the Grand Jury. If her testimony on one charge is impeached, then her reliability on the other is brought into question. I am sure case law on this does exist, but restricted legal resources and lack of time prevent me from searching for citations.

Dr. Caligari said...

Dr. Caligari, what a favorable Malicious Prosecution ruling in civil court does is definitely lay groundwork for amending a wrongful criminal conviction.

Only by your definition of "definitely."

am sure case law on this does exist, but restricted legal resources and lack of time prevent me from searching for citations.

(a) There is no such case law; and
(b) It is grossly irresponsible, and very injurious to Mangum's hopes of being released, for you to file lawsuits willy-nilly without doing the necessary research first. If you ever did that, you might not have a multi-decade long string of losses in court.

Dr. Caligari Supporter said...

Udaman Dr. Caligari.

guiowen said...


Sidney said,
"I have little faith in Satana Deberry.."

Sidney, that's why I have (on more than one occasion) encouraged you to recruit a good honest lawyer and persuade him to run for AG.

Nifong Supporter Supporter said...

Nifong Supporter,

Love that gangsta rap. We knew you were from California, but you never told us you were Straight Outta Compton.

Anonymous said...

That’s one bad azz.

guiowen said...

So, Sidney,
Any luck getting good old Milton to deliver a sworn statement about how he was threatened?