Friday, July 20, 2018

Mangum v. Bond: Motions Hearing on August 15, 2018

108 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...


This post contains the motions to be heard at the August 15th hearing concerning defendant Durham Police Officer Marianne Bond. The motions involving the Durham District Attorney's Office will be posted at the earliest time possible.

Anonymous said...

Sid, your claims that malice can be shown because the charges were only included because of the Felony Murder Rule has repeatedly been shown to you to be false. The fact you keep bringing it up, even though it never applied, shows malice on your part. Your lawsuit will fail miserably, and Crystal will probably be hit with sanctions for the filing. Your response is more pathetic than your usual.

Dr. Caligari said...

The statute of limitations ran. Period, full stop. Case is over. "I'm Crystal Mangum and I'm an important person" is not a ground for ignoring the statute of limitations.

If a lawyer blew that statute of limitations (and it's not clear to me thaat filing a malicious prosecution claim was within the scope of the representation by any of Mangum's prior lawyers), the remedy is to sue that lawyer for malpractice. That is still not an exception to the statute of limitations.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Caligari,

As has been repeatedly explained to Sid, NONE of the appointed attorneys would have had any obligation to file a civil lawsuit on her behalf. It was well outside the scope of their representation, even if they thought she had a valid claim (which she doesn't). The Statute of Limitations will stop this lawsuit dead in it's tracks. Period, end of story. Sid can whine all he wants, but that's it.

His lawyers did not fail her, Sid failed her.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid, your claims that malice can be shown because the charges were only included because of the Felony Murder Rule has repeatedly been shown to you to be false. The fact you keep bringing it up, even though it never applied, shows malice on your part. Your lawsuit will fail miserably, and Crystal will probably be hit with sanctions for the filing. Your response is more pathetic than your usual.

July 20, 2018 at 10:06 AM


Although malice can be shown by collateral purpose, or ulterior motive (such as use of the felony murder rule), malice is also demonstrated whenever a charge is brought with full knowledge of innocence (see Bell v. Pearcy). In Mangum's case, Officer Bond was well aware that there was lack of probable cause and therefore of her innocence. Actually, malice is proved on both counts.

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
The statute of limitations ran. Period, full stop. Case is over. "I'm Crystal Mangum and I'm an important person" is not a ground for ignoring the statute of limitations.

If a lawyer blew that statute of limitations (and it's not clear to me thaat filing a malicious prosecution claim was within the scope of the representation by any of Mangum's prior lawyers), the remedy is to sue that lawyer for malpractice. That is still not an exception to the statute of limitations.

July 20, 2018 at 10:25 AM


Perjury is also a crime, yet the State has elected not to take any action against Officer Bond. The laws of man are not perfect and not always administered faithfully. Understanding that Mangum's legal representation was biased against her should enough to mitigate the issue of the statute of limitations.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Dr. Caligari,

As has been repeatedly explained to Sid, NONE of the appointed attorneys would have had any obligation to file a civil lawsuit on her behalf. It was well outside the scope of their representation, even if they thought she had a valid claim (which she doesn't). The Statute of Limitations will stop this lawsuit dead in it's tracks. Period, end of story. Sid can whine all he wants, but that's it.

His lawyers did not fail her, Sid failed her.

July 20, 2018 at 10:39 AM


Anony, attorneys have an obligation to work in the best interests of their clients. Throughout Mangum's case her legal counsel have worked in the best interests of Duke University Hospital and the State witnesses... They have sabotaged Mangum's case which was practically conviction-proof.

Her attorneys did nothing for her. At least I helped her file the Complaint. Have you heard of the saying "Nothing ventured, nothing gained"...?

Anonymous said...

Sorry to break the news to you Sid, but your motion for summary judgment (oops, I mean Crystal's motion for summary judgment) is a piece of trash. Be prepared for the judge to throw you out of court on your azz.

Anonymous said...

What's going to be more amusing is seeing how Crystal struggles to explain any of this - since she doesn't have a lawyer, Sid clearly is doing all this with limited input from Crystal, and she will be all alone at that table to answer the Judge's questions. Sid will not be allowed to sit with her, speak with her, or communicate with her.

How's that going to work out Sid?

I mean, it should work out fine since you claim she is doing all this on her own, and you are merely helping her with typing, right?

Anonymous said...

Sid, you keep saying attorneys have an obligation to work in the best interests of their clients - but only for those areas covered by representation. If a court appointed criminal attorney has a client in an auto accident, they are not obligation to pursue that lawsuit. As has been explained to you - all the stuff you whine about is well outside their scope of representation.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sorry to break the news to you Sid, but your motion for summary judgment (oops, I mean Crystal's motion for summary judgment) is a piece of trash. Be prepared for the judge to throw you out of court on your azz.

July 21, 2018 at 2:39 PM


Hey, Anony.

Please clean up your vocabulary. Since your statement was directed towards me, I will let it pass this time.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
What's going to be more amusing is seeing how Crystal struggles to explain any of this - since she doesn't have a lawyer, Sid clearly is doing all this with limited input from Crystal, and she will be all alone at that table to answer the Judge's questions. Sid will not be allowed to sit with her, speak with her, or communicate with her.

How's that going to work out Sid?

I mean, it should work out fine since you claim she is doing all this on her own, and you are merely helping her with typing, right?

July 22, 2018 at 5:45 AM


Anony, I believe that you underestimate Crystal Mangum. She is an extremely intelligent person and has total comprehension about her legal situation. She can hold her own against the State despite the fact that she is incarcerated and has no access to a law library or the internet. What Crystal has on her side is truth and justice.

In fact, I still believe that had Crystal prepared and represented herself during her criminal trial that she had a good chance for a mis-trial, or possibly even an acquittal.

Even when Crystal took the witness stand at her trial she handled herself well. The prosecution never laid a glove on her.

Crystal will do just fine on August 15th.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid, you keep saying attorneys have an obligation to work in the best interests of their clients - but only for those areas covered by representation. If a court appointed criminal attorney has a client in an auto accident, they are not obligation to pursue that lawsuit. As has been explained to you - all the stuff you whine about is well outside their scope of representation.


July 22, 2018 at 5:47 AM


Anony, I am not an attorney and have had no legal training. Crystal Mangum is not an attorney and she has had no legal training. Why is it that we were able to recognize that there was a civil lawsuit related to the Grand Jury testimony and none of Mangum's State Bar defense attorneys were unable to do so?

Fact is that Mangum's attorneys have sabotaged her case from the git-go... doing whatever they could to protect the interests of Duke University and its hospital and their witnesses who consistently gave perjured testimony on material issues.

What I find unacceptable is that if a criminal defense attorney recognizes that his client has grounds for a civil lawsuit, he/she should at least inform or provide a reference if he/she feels uncomfortable handling the case him/herself.

Do you get my drift?

Anonymous said...

Sid,

Everyone understands what you are saying, but they've explained why you are wrong. Just because you don't believe that's how it should be doesn't mean it is. First of all, as many have explained, your lawsuit for Malicious Prosecution has no merit (the fact it is beyond the Statute of Limitations just means it will get dismissed quicker), so they never should have brought it - but even if it had merit (and again, it does not), it's beyond their representation and they have no obligation to even advise her of it, no matter what you think.

You can whine all you want, but your refusal to acknowledge when you are wrong shows a serious mental issue (like the Felony Murder you keep bringing up).

Any chance you are going to alert the media so they can be there to stream it?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid,

Everyone understands what you are saying, but they've explained why you are wrong. Just because you don't believe that's how it should be doesn't mean it is. First of all, as many have explained, your lawsuit for Malicious Prosecution has no merit (the fact it is beyond the Statute of Limitations just means it will get dismissed quicker), so they never should have brought it - but even if it had merit (and again, it does not), it's beyond their representation and they have no obligation to even advise her of it, no matter what you think.

You can whine all you want, but your refusal to acknowledge when you are wrong shows a serious mental issue (like the Felony Murder you keep bringing up).

Any chance you are going to alert the media so they can be there to stream it?

July 22, 2018 at 11:07 AM


I have e-mailed several media-types... Ed Crump of ABC-11, Virginia Bridges of The Herald-Sun, staff writers of The News & Observer and Charlotte Observer. I also e-mailed some out of state media... (for example, the Spotlight team from the Boston Globe). The only media-type I do not notify is WRAL, which has treated me with much hostility. I am not allowed on its property, for example. I would like to notify as much media as possible to alert them of Mangum's appearance in court on August 15th... but they may not be interested in covering the story.

guiowen said...


sidney,
The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday I think it would be great if you explained to the people holding Crystal that she needs a day or two to prepare for this. That so, they might be willing to let her go to Durham as early as Monday 13, and possibly even Sunday 12. Try to make the hearing last until Thursday 16, or even Friday 17. Explain to these people that you need to stay close to Crystal, and you might get them to let you spend the nights of that week in the hotel with her. (This would be merely for the purpose of defining a strategy, of course.)
See how well this is working out? Good luck, amigo mio!

Dr. Caligari said...

Try to make the hearing last until Thursday 16, or even Friday 17.

If the hearing lasts half an hour I'll be surprised. The statute of limtitations issue is so clear cut. "Ms. Mangum, what date were you acquitted of the larceny charge? What date did you file this lawsuit? Do you allege anything in your complaint that would toll the statute of limitations? Dismissed. Costs to defendants."

Tin-Foil Hat said...

Dr. Harr, you need to remove the last post by g and ban him from future posting on your blog because he is an evil duke troll who is attempting to cyberbully you and commit hate crimes against you with his insane comments and trolling which he has done against me for years and will do against you until you prevent from posting here like the member of the evil duke troll gang that he is

Anonymous said...

What hotel do you think Crystal would be staying in? She will be in the Durham County Jail.

The hearing will last less than 30 minutes. It would normally last 5, but the Judge will let Crystal whine about not having Sid at the table with her for at least a few minutes.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid,

Everyone understands what you are saying, but they've explained why you are wrong. Just because you don't believe that's how it should be doesn't mean it is. First of all, as many have explained, your lawsuit for Malicious Prosecution has no merit (the fact it is beyond the Statute of Limitations just means it will get dismissed quicker), so they never should have brought it - but even if it had merit (and again, it does not), it's beyond their representation and they have no obligation to even advise her of it, no matter what you think.

You can whine all you want, but your refusal to acknowledge when you are wrong shows a serious mental issue (like the Felony Murder you keep bringing up).

Any chance you are going to alert the media so they can be there to stream it?

July 22, 2018 at 11:07 AM


Hah. gui, mon ami, I love your plan, but I think it has a snowball's chance on the surface of a lava flow to work. Thanks for the suggestion though.

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
Try to make the hearing last until Thursday 16, or even Friday 17.

If the hearing lasts half an hour I'll be surprised. The statute of limtitations issue is so clear cut. "Ms. Mangum, what date were you acquitted of the larceny charge? What date did you file this lawsuit? Do you allege anything in your complaint that would toll the statute of limitations? Dismissed. Costs to defendants."

July 22, 2018 at 6:50 PM


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

You know, as well as I, that the Statute of Limitations argument is an extremely weak one... but, I must agree with you that it's probably the best one at Bond's and the State's disposal. Surely, they can't hope to argue the merits of Mangum's complaint and expect to prevail.

The length of the proceeding may or may not surprise you, but I am sure that the outcome will.

Also, in this case, Bond and the State are the defendants... not Mangum.

Nifong Supporter said...


Tin-Foil Hat said...
Dr. Harr, you need to remove the last post by g and ban him from future posting on your blog because he is an evil duke troll who is attempting to cyberbully you and commit hate crimes against you with his insane comments and trolling which he has done against me for years and will do against you until you prevent from posting here like the member of the evil duke troll gang that he is

July 22, 2018 at 7:32 PM


Hey, Tin-Foil Hat.

As I rule, I am loathe to ban any commenter who identifies him/herself using a name or pin-name... that is anything other than "Anonymous." This goes doubly if the comment is not in violation of the kenhyderal doctrine. In other words, I give wide latitude to named and known commenters, especially if they are well-wishers. I cannot, of course determine the sincerity of their comments absolutely, but I believe gui is being sincere.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
What hotel do you think Crystal would be staying in? She will be in the Durham County Jail.

The hearing will last less than 30 minutes. It would normally last 5, but the Judge will let Crystal whine about not having Sid at the table with her for at least a few minutes.

July 23, 2018 at 4:28 AM


Anony, I feel so sorry for you in anticipation of the big day, that I am willing to give you a discount on a crying towel. (The default color is Duke blue. Let me know if you have a different color preference.) Just send me your name and mailing address.

I already have a cache of crying towels ready for Walt, Abe, A Lawyer, JSwift, and other commenters with whom you may want to commiserate... Maybe you can all plan a Crying Party for the evening of August 15th.

Dr. Caligari said...

Hey, Dr. Caligari.
You know, as well as I, that the Statute of Limitations argument is an extremely weak one.


I know nothing of the kind. In fact, the statute of limitations is dispositive in this case. You have not articulated a single recognized excepton to the statute.

I already have a cache of crying towels ready for Walt, Abe, A Lawyer, JSwift, and other commenters with whom you may want to commiserate... Maybe you can all plan a Crying Party for the evening of August 15th.

Someone's going to be crying on August 15, but it won't be me.

Anonymous said...

Sidney said: "I already have a cache of crying towels ready for Walt, Abe, A Lawyer, JSwift, and other commenters with whom you may want to commiserate..."

Walt is gone.
Abe is gone.
A Lawyer is gone.

Sidney you are beating a dead horse...


Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sidney said: "I already have a cache of crying towels ready for Walt, Abe, A Lawyer, JSwift, and other commenters with whom you may want to commiserate..."

Walt is gone.
Abe is gone.
A Lawyer is gone.

Sidney you are beating a dead horse...



July 24, 2018 at 9:26 AM


True, Anony, it's been some time since Walt, Abe, and A Lawyer have commented... but your implied premise is undoubtedly incorrect. The reason they, and possibly a few others, have not recently placed comments is because they have become enlightened at long last and come to the realization that justice will inevitably win out... and soon. Being discouraged, they have left the battlefield, as it were, to go home and assuage their wounds.

Clearly, you, unlike they, have not seen the light, and are under the belief that Crystal Mangum will be destroyed at the hearing. Again, you severely underestimate the lady.

Dr. Caligari said...

A Lawyer is gone.

I'm not gone; I had to switch my handle to a Google identity because some troll was impersonating "A Lawyer" and posting disgusting things to discredit me.

And I am convinced that Mangum will not prevail on August 15, just as she has not on any of the prior dates you predicted.

Anonymous said...

No, they realize you are a dishonest person with no real intention of helping Crystal. When they try to help (explaining civil procedure, felony murder, and other things), you refuse to listen.

The light they have seen is that you are a joke and unwilling to take help, so they've decided to stop wasting time trying to help.

Crystal's lawsuit will go down in flames in August, and you will blame racism and the rest.

Anonymous said...

I'm trying to understand what happened with good old Milton.
So far as I can tell, Marianne Bond (or someone in the prosecutor's office) asked Milton to testify at Crystal's 2013 trial. He probably said no, at which point Bond explained to him that he could be cited for contempt if he refused. What's more, I imagine she told him whatever he said had to be consistent with testimony given at the 2010 trial, or he could be cited for perjury. No one explained to him that, if he just refused to appear, they could put him in jail, but only until Crystal's trial was over.
Some four years later, he felt he had to explain to Crystal what he had done and why. So he just said that Bond threatened to jail him if he didn't do what she wanted.
The question now is whether he will try to sign an affidavit about this.
Good luck with this, Dr. Harr.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
I'm trying to understand what happened with good old Milton.
So far as I can tell, Marianne Bond (or someone in the prosecutor's office) asked Milton to testify at Crystal's 2013 trial. He probably said no, at which point Bond explained to him that he could be cited for contempt if he refused. What's more, I imagine she told him whatever he said had to be consistent with testimony given at the 2010 trial, or he could be cited for perjury. No one explained to him that, if he just refused to appear, they could put him in jail, but only until Crystal's trial was over.
Some four years later, he felt he had to explain to Crystal what he had done and why. So he just said that Bond threatened to jail him if he didn't do what she wanted.
The question now is whether he will try to sign an affidavit about this.
Good luck with this, Dr. Harr.

July 25, 2018 at 3:28 PM


Hey, Anony.

First, thanks for the well wishes.

It is clear that Milton Walker did not want to testify as a 404(b) witness at Mangum's 2013 trial; he said as much on the stand. He not only reluctantly answered questions put before him, but offered a critically false statement that Mangum held a knife in his hand when she allegedly lunged at him in the 2010 arson-incident. This was even contradicted by the two officers at the scene who said they did not witness Mangum with a knife.

The question is, why would a reluctant witness, who considered himself a friend of the defendant, give false and devastating testimony under oath. The answer is, as he confessed in a phone call with Crystal several months ago, that he was threatened to by Durham Police Officer Marianne Bond.

Shortly thereafter, Mangum filed a Motion for Appropriate Relief based on the new evidence of the phone confession, and she asked that the recorded phone call be protected and that she be given a copy. The last time that I checked, Durham senior resident Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson had taken no action. A letter was also sent to Erik Hooks, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety, asking that the audio recording be preserved. There has been no response from him or his office, either.

I believe the audio recording of the conversation is the most powerful piece of evidence because it was spontaneous and unscripted. Plus there is other information in the conversation that accrues to the benefit of Mangum. Although an affidavit might be helpful, I do not believe that it would add more to the audio recording. On this point, I may be wrong. To-date, it's all moot because the Court has elected to ignore Mangum's MAR... at least so far.

My fingers are crossed, but I am optimistic for a positive outcome on August 15th.

By the way, Judge Jim Hardin is scheduled to preside at the hearing. I think that will be a positive.

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
A Lawyer is gone.

I'm not gone; I had to switch my handle to a Google identity because some troll was impersonating "A Lawyer" and posting disgusting things to discredit me.

And I am convinced that Mangum will not prevail on August 15, just as she has not on any of the prior dates you predicted.

July 25, 2018 at 8:23 AM


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

Actually, I find your present handle to be much more creative and to my liking than simply "A Lawyer."

Yes, it is true that my positive prognostications regarding Mangum's legal entanglements have fallen through, but that is because I placed too much faith in principles acting with principles and did not understand the depth of contempt to which Ms. Mangum has been held.

However, when truth and justice is on one's side, as it is with Crystal, there's always hope, and I am optimistic that she will prevail in this hearing when the merits of her case are indisputable.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
No, they realize you are a dishonest person with no real intention of helping Crystal. When they try to help (explaining civil procedure, felony murder, and other things), you refuse to listen.

The light they have seen is that you are a joke and unwilling to take help, so they've decided to stop wasting time trying to help.

Crystal's lawsuit will go down in flames in August, and you will blame racism and the rest.

July 25, 2018 at 8:28 AM


As in any high-stakes game, when I am dealt the race card, I play it. Mangum has been dealt that card repeatedly. You know, as well as I, that had the 2006 Duke Lacrosse accuser been white (or non-African American) that she would not have been persecuted and retaliated against by the State and mainstream media. Objective vision clearly shows this to be the case.

I have helped Crystal Mangum get in Court to have a hearing on motions related to her case. This proceeding provides a better shot at her receiving justice (release and exoneration) than if she remained languishing in prison twiddling her thumbs... doing nothing... which is exactly what her post-conviction legal representation did for her. Other than the flawed Direct Appeal, there were no post-conviction motions filed with the Court by Mangum's professional legal counsel. All lawsuits, including the Malicious Prosecution complaint, have been filed by Mangum Pro Se, with clerical and logistical assistance from me.

Hopefully this provides you with some elucidation.

Anonymous said...

Mangum's false rape claim got the publicity it did in large part because of the race dynamic (rich, white kids assault poor, black woman). The Duke community and media ran with it precisely because of the race issue. Mangum has many issues, but I believe she was smart and lucid enough to recognize the race dynamic at play and that she could use it to her benefit when she decided to lie about being raped.

She also received a complete pass from the authorities for the false claim. I don't know if race played into the decision to excuse Mangum's criminal misconduct in filing a false complaint. I think the decision not to punish Mangum had more to do with her mental health issues and Nifong's actions in perpetuating an obviously false claim. Whatever the reason, Mangum received a complete pass.

Mangum still has not apologized for lying about being raped and falsely accusing three men of a heinous crime that did not happen. This speaks volumes about her character.

Your lawsuit filed in Mangum's name is going to fail and fail badly next month. There is no question about that and it is pointless to argue with you about it. You are unwilling to acknowledge error, learn from past experience and change. I suspect that is a character trait that has afflicted you your entire life to your great detriment.

If you want to waste your life making false claims against people and losing in court over and over again, that is on you. But shame on you for imposing yourself on Mangum, involving yourself in her case and ruining any chance she had for a successful defense and appeal. That is something both you and she will have to live with for the rest of your lives.

This is not a game. It is disturbing to see you treat it as such.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

kenhyderal said...

Crystal did not lie about being raped. Given her horrendous experience, positively identifying the perpetrators from dozens present was always problematic. An inadequate, pathetic Police investigation and a dream team Defence with a strategy of easily discrediting a vulnerable, marginalized individual made reasonable doubt all but certain. She was the honest victim and has nothing to apologize for, other then maybe a coerced, inadvertent misidentification of anyone who was truly completely innocent ie. possibly Finnerty.

Nifong Supporter said...


Hey, Abe.

As kenhyderal pointed out in his above comment, Crystal Mangum has nothing for which to apologize. She has steadfastly maintained, with no contrary evidence and of which I believe, that she was truthful about being sexually assaulted at the Duke Lacrosse party. Also, as kenhyderal pointed out, it is possible that she might have mis-identified one or more of her assailants. Unfortunately, the partygoers, consisting of mostly the student/athletes, were united in their unwillingness to cooperate with D.A. Mike Nifong's investigative team to identify the three young men who detained Mangum in the bathroom.

Whatever, the three defendants came out the better for it as they were lauded and lionized by the media and public as heroes, each received $20 million from Duke University for reasons unknown, served no jail time, and are held in general high esteem. The true victims in the Duke Lacrosse case are Nifong, Mangum, and Lady Justice.

Abe, I do agree with you that the murder case of Crystal Mangum is not a game. Like you, I believe that it is very serious. That's especially true because an innocent person has already spent more than seven years in confinement and is facing an addition eight to ten more.

Regarding Mangum's Malicious Prosecution lawsuit, my position is this: Since her November 2013 conviction, aside from the weak one-issue Direct Appeal, Mangum's post-conviction legal counsels have not done anything for Crystal. No Motions, No investigation, No attempts to retrieve the 18-page document from Dr. Nichols' personnel file, No nothing.

What you should consider is: Would Crystal be better off following prior legal strategy of doing nothing? Or, would she be better off if lawsuits and motions were filed on her behalf? My gut tells me she would at least have a chance of benefiting if something was done rather than if nothing. Currently she has not only the Malicious Prosecution lawsuit with its upcoming Motions Hearing, but a Motion for Appropriate Relief based on new evidence of witness tampering by Durham Police Officer Marianne Bond (to which there has been no action by the Court to date).

I respect your views about Mangum and her legal woes, however, I disagree with them. My strategy of doing something may be vindicated on Wednesday, August 15th. Time will tell.

Anonymous said...

Crystal did not lie about being raped -- Fine.

Now, which version of her "rape" is the truth?

Anonymous said...

Here are the various versions of Crystals "rape story" as I have found them:

1. She was raped by three people
2. She was raped by five people
3. The second dancer, Kim Roberts, was an accomplice
4. The second dancer, Kim Roberts, was a fellow victim
5. The story here

Can all of these been simultaneously true?

kenhyderal said...

Incapacitated by a noxious substance, kidnapped, forcibly restrained, beset upon by a brutish gang assault and in utter terror, there is little wonder she can not, in clinical detail, minutely and cogently describe the nightmarish crime perpetrated against her the memory of which still brings on flashbacks and P.T.S.

Nifong Supporter said...


Note to Doogie Howser: Although I appreciate your alert to a possible kenhyderal doctrine violation, I am concerned with monitoring the content of comments to this site only... and not any links that they may contain that lead to documents with objectionable material. A possible exception would be a link to an overtly racist, fascist, or otherwise offensive site.

Gratitude for your watchful eye.

Anonymous said...

Kenny,

How do you explain the version of the story she told to William Cohan?

Anonymous said...

kenny,

But Mangum gave a very vivid, detailed description of the events she claimed happened to her. She gave multiple, conflicting descriptions. She identified the people she claimed perpetrated the acts against her with certainty. Each story she told was contradicted by the facts and evidence. Her identifications were contradicted by rock solid scientific, scientific evidence and incontrovertible alibi evidence.

Mangum lied about being raped. That much is now known as fact. Perpetuating that lie in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary does nothing to help Mangum in her current predicament. It just reflects very poorly on her character, as well as the character of you and Sid. The right thing to do is to unequivocally apologize for lying about being raped. If she did, people might be more apt to give her the benefit of the doubt going forward.

It's never too late to do the right thing. At this point it couldn't hurt for Mangum to start trying to live a moral and upright life.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Dr. Caligari said...

Incapacitated by a noxious substance, kidnapped, forcibly restrained, beset upon by a brutish gang assault and in utter terror, there is little wonder she can not, in clinical detail, minutely and cogently describe the nightmarish crime perpetrated against her the memory of which still brings on flashbacks and P.T.S.

We're not talking about minor details here-- if she doesn't know how many men raped her and what they did to her, her testimony is absolutely useless in any kind of legal proceeding, and for Nifong to have brought an indictment against innocent men based on that testimony was an assault on justice.

kenhyderal said...

Abe said: "Mangum lied about being raped. That much is now known as fact".......................That is not fact but your speculation. There is no proof that she lied. There was insufficient evidence developed by a poor Police investigation to prove or disprove that a crime occurred. Those charged could well of committed kidnapping robbery and sexual assault as well as aiding and abetting those unidentified, non tested, attendees who committed a rape. A proper Police investigation could have readily determined the source of the DNA found unexplained by her given consensual sexual history which Crystal haters, without proof, claim came from her engaging in prostitution and lying about this

Anonymous said...

So Kenny, you still continue to ignore the account provided by Crystal to William Cohan. As they say, your silence speaks volumes.

Dr. Caligari said...

"Mangum lied about being raped. That much is now known as fact".......................That is not fact but your speculation. There is no proof that she lied.

Kenny, even you concede that at least one of the men she definitively identified had an air-tight alibi. So she either lied about being raped by him, or her memory was so impaired that she had no business saying she was sure about her identification. Dispute the word "lied" if you will -- and I think there is a ton of other evidence that she indeed lied-- but even you will have to agree that she was a "false accuser."

guiowen said...

I will agree with Kenhyderal that a proper police investigation could have found a lot. Unfortunately Nifong and Meehan decided not to carry out such an investigation as it Might have "embarrassed" someone -- God only knows whom.

guiowen said...

Sidney,
I hope you're doing something about Milton -- get him to write an affidavit, or come testify at the trial. Otherwise a phone call -- by one of Crystal's friends, no less -- is not going to be the "powerful" testimony that you think.

Anonymous said...

G ... of course Sid isn't doing anything. That's not his MO. He files stuff, and expects others to do his work for him, even though it's been explained to him that it's his obligation to gather the evidence, get the affidavit, and the rest.

Sid takes the path of least resistance - files things, but refuses to go beyond. Even though there are other avenues of legal research, since he cannot use the COA and Supreme Court law libraries, he refuses to use any. He refuses to try and interview Milton to get an affidavit (even though that is his obligation, and would be powerful). He still spouts lies about a plea offer, and felony murder - because finding the truth is too hard.

Of course he's doing nothing - he doesn't care to win, he's fine with losing, so long as Crystal thinks he's doing something (which he isn't, but he pretends), he's happy.

It's sad, and abusive.

kenhyderal said...

Because of all the investigations, he has conducted, into the wrongful conviction of Crystal, Dr. Harr is the foremost authority on this case. This case, I say, never mind scouring case law to find some so called precedent, with circumstances barely applicable, looking to impress the Judge and to get him off the hook from making his own common sense judgements. The Lawyers assigned to defend Crystal conducted absolutely no investigations whatsoever. Zero, nada. They really did not know what the case was all about. Common sense says Daye did not break off his attack and flee. Common sense says Duke killed Daye, not Crystal. It's little wonder that she received such a pathetic defence and received this unjust conviction for something she is completely innocent of.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Sidney,
I hope you're doing something about Milton -- get him to write an affidavit, or come testify at the trial. Otherwise a phone call -- by one of Crystal's friends, no less -- is not going to be the "powerful" testimony that you think.

July 29, 2018 at 12:54 PM


Hey, gui, mon ami.

Right now, I have been concentrating on the malicious prosecution case, in which Milton Walker's involvement is peripheral, at most... a victim of witness tampering by Durham Officer Marianne Bond. Walker's comments about false testimony in Mangum's trial is at the center of a Motion for Appropriate Relief that Mangum filed months ago. The last time I checked a couple of weeks ago, Judge Orlando Hudson had taken no action on the case. Also, Mangum's request of Erik Hooks, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety, to preserve the phone call as new evidence, has gone unanswered.

With my focus on the malicious prosecution, I will not really give much consideration to a Walker affidavit or possible testimony any serious attention at this time. With anticipated action on the MAR, I will address Walker's role and importance of his involvement.

Dr. Caligari said...

Walker's comments about false testimony in Mangum's trial is at the center of a Motion for Appropriate Relief that Mangum filed months ago. The last time I checked a couple of weeks ago, Judge Orlando Hudson had taken no action on the case. Also, Mangum's request of Erik Hooks, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety, to preserve the phone call as new evidence, has gone unanswered.

All you have now is what Mangum says Walker told him. Double hearsay and completely inadmissible. Even the phone call, if recorded, is still hearsay and still inadmissible. Without an affidavit from Walker the MAR will be summarily denied for lack of evidence.

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
Walker's comments about false testimony in Mangum's trial is at the center of a Motion for Appropriate Relief that Mangum filed months ago. The last time I checked a couple of weeks ago, Judge Orlando Hudson had taken no action on the case. Also, Mangum's request of Erik Hooks, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety, to preserve the phone call as new evidence, has gone unanswered.

All you have now is what Mangum says Walker told him. Double hearsay and completely inadmissible. Even the phone call, if recorded, is still hearsay and still inadmissible. Without an affidavit from Walker the MAR will be summarily denied for lack of evidence.

July 30, 2018 at 8:21 AM


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

First, all phone calls placed by inmates from correctional institutions are "monitored and recorded." Early on, Mangum requested that her specific phone call be preserved and that she be provided with a transcript as it contained new exculpatory evidence. That Milton Walker's voice is on the audio recording does not make it hearsay, but rather pertinent. It further has value of implicating Officer Marianne Bond in an additional crime of witness tampering.

Still waiting to hear from the court about the MAR.

Dr. Caligari said...

That Milton Walker's voice is on the audio recording does not make it hearsay, but rather pertinent.

A statement made out of court and not under oath is hearsay.

It further has value of implicating Officer Marianne Bond in an additional crime of witness tampering.

If it's not admissible in evidence, it has no value.

From the first time you posted about Mangum's conversation with Walker, I and other posters told you that you needed to get Walker to sign an affidavit. When the MAR is denied for lack of admissible evidence, that will be your fault, not the fault of the racist court system or the carpetbagger jihad or anyone else you're going to balme.

Anonymous said...


Dr. Harr,
I thought you'd like to see this:

In American jurisprudence, under the rules for hearsay, admission of an unsupported affidavit as evidence is unusual (especially if the affiant is not available for cross-examination) with regard to material facts which may be dispositive of the matter at bar. Affidavits from persons who are dead or otherwise incapacitated, or who cannot be located or made to appear, may be accepted by the court, but usually only in the presence of corroborating evidence.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 12:41 ... the affidavit is simply for the filing of the MAR for the Judge to determine that there might be a need for a further hearing. They never decide a MAR just on the pleadings (despite what Sid wants to believe). If they grant an actual hearing, Milton would have to be subpoenaed in to actually testify.

They'd probably also appoint Mangum an attorney, but I'm sure she'd reject it for Sid.

But, of course, since Sid refuses to do anything he's been told to do, like get that affidavit, it will be denied out of hand, and Sid will whine that it's racist and unjust, even though he's been told exactly what he needs to do to help his case.

guiowen said...

Sidney,
Make sure Milton is prepared for the testimony he will be giving.

Dr. Caligari said...

Sidney,
Make sure Milton is prepared for the testimony he will be giving.


He will not be giving any testimony unless he signs an affidavit first, as Anon. at 3:03 explained.

guiowen said...

So, Sidney,
First, get Milton to file an affidavit.
Then, get him to prepare for the hearing. He will probably be cross-examined, so he had better know exactly what he will say. Just be truthful!!

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
That Milton Walker's voice is on the audio recording does not make it hearsay, but rather pertinent.

A statement made out of court and not under oath is hearsay.

It further has value of implicating Officer Marianne Bond in an additional crime of witness tampering.

If it's not admissible in evidence, it has no value.

From the first time you posted about Mangum's conversation with Walker, I and other posters told you that you needed to get Walker to sign an affidavit. When the MAR is denied for lack of admissible evidence, that will be your fault, not the fault of the racist court system or the carpetbagger jihad or anyone else you're going to balme.

July 31, 2018 at 10:21 AM


What Mangum requested in the MAR was for an Order to preserve the phone call and prevent it from being deleted... the audio recording being the admissible evidence itself.

Question for you: Do you believe that the Court should take action to see that an audio recording is preserved that is identified by an inmate as containing new exculpatory evidence?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Harr,
I thought you'd like to see this:

In American jurisprudence, under the rules for hearsay, admission of an unsupported affidavit as evidence is unusual (especially if the affiant is not available for cross-examination) with regard to material facts which may be dispositive of the matter at bar. Affidavits from persons who are dead or otherwise incapacitated, or who cannot be located or made to appear, may be accepted by the court, but usually only in the presence of corroborating evidence.

August 1, 2018 at 12:41 PM


Hey, Anony.

Thanks for the reference. Don't know exactly how it fits with the witness tampering case involving Milton Walker... Walker being neither dead nor incapacitated. The question also is does the audio recording of the phone call provide support for the affidavit? I would think so. Had I to choose between an audio recording or an affidavit, I would undoubtedly select the former as it is direct evidence. An affidavit could supply additional information.

I'm not dismissive of the value of an affidavit, but under the circumstances and the witness, with Mangum's upcoming hearing I have definitely put obtaining an affidavit from Mr. Walker on the back burner.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anon at 12:41 ... the affidavit is simply for the filing of the MAR for the Judge to determine that there might be a need for a further hearing. They never decide a MAR just on the pleadings (despite what Sid wants to believe). If they grant an actual hearing, Milton would have to be subpoenaed in to actually testify.

They'd probably also appoint Mangum an attorney, but I'm sure she'd reject it for Sid.

But, of course, since Sid refuses to do anything he's been told to do, like get that affidavit, it will be denied out of hand, and Sid will whine that it's racist and unjust, even though he's been told exactly what he needs to do to help his case.


August 1, 2018 at 3:03 PM


I am not opposed to Crystal receiving professional legal representation, as we have both sought it for some time. Keep in mind the NC Prisoner Legal Services abandoned her. Appellate defense attorney Petersen sabotaged her case which was grounds for Mangum dismissing her. Due to the political nature of her case, attorneys want to steer clear of any involvement.

I am not familiar with the MAR process, but I believe that the Court should have at least prepared an Order to preserve the audio phone recording. What is your opinion on that?


Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
So, Sidney,
First, get Milton to file an affidavit.
Then, get him to prepare for the hearing. He will probably be cross-examined, so he had better know exactly what he will say. Just be truthful!!

August 1, 2018 at 8:20 PM


gui, mon ami,

Thanks for the good advice. I am hopeful that the August 15th hearing will result in Mangum being freed. Following the Malicious Prosecution case's resolution, I will turn my attention to the MAR.

NOTE: Yesterday I put in a calendar request for a hearing in the Wake County Court on my Motion for Summary Judgment in my lawsuit against WRAL-5 News.

Anonymous said...

I am not familiar with the MAR process, but I believe that the Court should have at least prepared an Order to preserve the audio phone recording. What is your opinion on that?


It's been explained to you, repeatedly, that the Court would not do that, you needed to contact the Department of Corrections, which you eventually did, hopefully not to late.

My opinion is that the Court isn't going to read a voluminous filing full of frivolous things to find something requested. You should have filed a simple request/order for that preservation, and served a copy on the Department of Corrections. You should have also contacted them.

All of this was repeatedly explained to you as soon as you filed the MAR, this is not new. If you've chosen to ignore it, and lost the call as a result, that's on you.

But, the call itself is useless without Milton's testimony. Again, you've been told what you need, you refuse to do it. It does make people question your motives.

Anonymous said...

The August 15th hearing is in Civil Court - it cannot result in Mangum being freed. This has been explained to you. I hope you don't lie to Crystal and tell her she has a chance for it to be otherwise. She doesn't. No matter how many times you want special treatment you won't get it. You have to follow the rules just like everyone else.

kenhyderal said...

@ Anonymous 12:29: Rules that are selectively applied and perversely utilized to thwart those deemed to be a treat to the status quo of a corrupt, self-serving justice system. One that provides justice to the rich and powerful but denies it to the poor and marginalized. Don't give us that "everyone else" myth. You should "keep your eye on the prize" which should be equal justice for all. A system where that ultimate objective trumps any arcane protocols; most especially where these are maliciously misused.

guiowen said...

Kenhyderal,
Is there any way that we can get you to stop whining?
I'll forgive your racism, if only you'll stop whining.

Anonymous said...


Sid said,

"Had I to choose between an audio recording or an affidavit, I would undoubtedly select the former as it is direct evidence."

At present you have neither and therein lies your problem. It is not up to the court to obtain evidence for you or make your case for you. You present the evidence to the court. It is up to the court to apply the law based on the facts and evidence presented to it.

You have failed again.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...


kenny,

Quit your whining. Mangum has received justice. The fact that you don't like it is of no moment.

If you have a legal argument, grounded in fact and supported by the law, to make to the contrary, you should make it. Ad hominem attacks, gratuitous insults and unsubstantiated claims about and directed to the legal system (a system you clearly do not understand) are a poor substitute for a cogent, well presented case. Although it may make you feel good to vent, this strategy has served Mangum poorly thus far, and it will not ever succeed.

Mangum's case is over. Her appeals are exhausted. She has run out of free passes and squandered all her breaks. Justice demands that Mangum serve her full sentence and there is nothing you or Sid can do to subvert it.

No sausage for you.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
I am not familiar with the MAR process, but I believe that the Court should have at least prepared an Order to preserve the audio phone recording. What is your opinion on that?


It's been explained to you, repeatedly, that the Court would not do that, you needed to contact the Department of Corrections, which you eventually did, hopefully not to late.

My opinion is that the Court isn't going to read a voluminous filing full of frivolous things to find something requested. You should have filed a simple request/order for that preservation, and served a copy on the Department of Corrections. You should have also contacted them.

All of this was repeatedly explained to you as soon as you filed the MAR, this is not new. If you've chosen to ignore it, and lost the call as a result, that's on you.

But, the call itself is useless without Milton's testimony. Again, you've been told what you need, you refuse to do it. It does make people question your motives.

August 2, 2018 at 12:09 PM


Anony, shirley you jest. How could anyone question my motives? I am the only one doing anything to help Crystal. Keep in mind that she was abandoned by the NC Prisoner Legal Services.

Right now, my priority is on the Malicious Prosecution Motions Hearing in less than two weeks. If necessary, I will look at the Milton Walker/MAR situation after the hearing is held on August 15th.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
The August 15th hearing is in Civil Court - it cannot result in Mangum being freed. This has been explained to you. I hope you don't lie to Crystal and tell her she has a chance for it to be otherwise. She doesn't. No matter how many times you want special treatment you won't get it. You have to follow the rules just like everyone else.


August 2, 2018 at 12:29 PM


Anony, I am aware that the Malicious Prosecution lawsuit is in civil court and not criminal court. Keep in mind that the relief Mangum is seeking is not to have her criminal conviction overturned.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
Kenhyderal,
Is there any way that we can get you to stop whining?
I'll forgive your racism, if only you'll stop whining.

August 2, 2018 at 4:36 PM


gui, mon ami, kenhyderal is not whining. He's making a lucid and valid statement, of which you obviously disagree. Also, his statements have not been racist. C'mon, amigo!!

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid said,

"Had I to choose between an audio recording or an affidavit, I would undoubtedly select the former as it is direct evidence."

At present you have neither and therein lies your problem. It is not up to the court to obtain evidence for you or make your case for you. You present the evidence to the court. It is up to the court to apply the law based on the facts and evidence presented to it.

You have failed again.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

August 2, 2018 at 7:03 PM


Hey, Abe.

Crystal Mangum is incarcerated, therefore having extremely limited resources to begin with. She is unable to obtain a copy of the recorded phone conversation which she believes contains exculpatory evidence. The Court has the ability to preserve the recording... and her request to preserve it has been met so far with silence. Likewise, she contacted Erik Hooks, the Secretary of NC Department of Public Safety, who has ignored her, to date.

What would you recommend that she do, other than contacting the Court and the NC DPS Secretary, to gain access to the audio phone recording? Keep in mind that she's incarcerated.

Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous said...

kenny,

Quit your whining. Mangum has received justice. The fact that you don't like it is of no moment.

If you have a legal argument, grounded in fact and supported by the law, to make to the contrary, you should make it. Ad hominem attacks, gratuitous insults and unsubstantiated claims about and directed to the legal system (a system you clearly do not understand) are a poor substitute for a cogent, well presented case. Although it may make you feel good to vent, this strategy has served Mangum poorly thus far, and it will not ever succeed.

Mangum's case is over. Her appeals are exhausted. She has run out of free passes and squandered all her breaks. Justice demands that Mangum serve her full sentence and there is nothing you or Sid can do to subvert it.

No sausage for you.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL


August 2, 2018 at 7:15 PM



C'mon, Abe. Don't jump on the "kenhyderal-whining bandwagon." Brings to mind the Trump supporters who chant "CNN sucks." I expect more from you, Abe, than from Anony.

kenhyderal's comments have always been serious, heart-felt, and civil. Just because you don't agree with his position does not mean that you should try to degrade their value by attributing them to whining behavior.

I not only say that because kenhyderal and I agree on subject, but because it is the way I feel. And, if Anony, or anyone else, accused you of whining when presenting your opinions, I would come to your defense. Like kenhyderal, I consider you a legitimate and serious commenter whose input I value. Comments from you both enrich this blog.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

It is whiny when you present no facts or law to support your conclusions and instead resort to generalizations and unsubstantiated claims about "corruption", "a self-serving justice system that denies justice to the poor and marginalized", "unfair treatment", etc. These are not serious, civil or heartfelt comments. They are the petulant complaints. They are whines.

I call them as I see them. Kenny is an unserious commentator who is unable to make a case, defend a position or withstand criticism. That makes him a whiner.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

Sid said,

"What would you recommend that she do, other than contacting the Court and the NC DPS Secretary, to gain access to the audio phone recording? Keep in mind that she's incarcerated."

As other commentators have suggested, get a sworn statement from Milton and submit it to the court post-haste. If Milton said what Mangum claims he said and if it's true, then he should have no problem swearing to it. Milton's statement is essential to Mangum's case. Without it, the MAR doesn't even get off the ground and isn't worth the paper its printed on. Even with an affidavit from Milton, the MAR is a longshot for reasons previously given, but without one it stands absolutely no chance.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Anonymous said...

" If Milton said what Mangum claims he said and if it's true,"

Two big ifs. Could Crystal have misunderstood him? Could he have said this to justify himself for having (in her mind at least) contributed to locking her up? From what I see, she called him to berate him; it's not as if he had called her first.

Anonymous said...

"Milton, why did you do this to me? You're supposed to be my friend, and you said things ta got me locked up."
"I'm sorry, Crystal, it's just that that woman, Bond, threatened to lock me up if I didn't say what she wanted me to say. I'M SORRY!

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid,

It is whiny when you present no facts or law to support your conclusions and instead resort to generalizations and unsubstantiated claims about "corruption", "a self-serving justice system that denies justice to the poor and marginalized", "unfair treatment", etc. These are not serious, civil or heartfelt comments. They are the petulant complaints. They are whines.

I call them as I see them. Kenny is an unserious commentator who is unable to make a case, defend a position or withstand criticism. That makes him a whiner.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

August 3, 2018 at 8:53 AM


Hey, Abe.

I looked up "whiny" which defines it mainly as an acoustic quality... One definition being "having a drawn-out, high-pitched, unpleasant sound."

A secondary definition was that it was a statement with a "complaining tone."

From my research, the word "whiny" has no bearing on the content of a statement or of its veracity. I would not say that arguing against a certain position is necessarily a complaint, but even if such is defined as a "whiny statement" then kenhyderal's comments cannot be distinguished from others when it comes to whether or not they are "whiny."

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid said,

"What would you recommend that she do, other than contacting the Court and the NC DPS Secretary, to gain access to the audio phone recording? Keep in mind that she's incarcerated."

As other commentators have suggested, get a sworn statement from Milton and submit it to the court post-haste. If Milton said what Mangum claims he said and if it's true, then he should have no problem swearing to it. Milton's statement is essential to Mangum's case. Without it, the MAR doesn't even get off the ground and isn't worth the paper its printed on. Even with an affidavit from Milton, the MAR is a longshot for reasons previously given, but without one it stands absolutely no chance.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

August 3, 2018 at 9:54 AM


Abe, what if Milton were to deny or refuse what he clearly stated on the audio recording of the phone call... then what? Records can prove that Crystal placed the phone call to Milton's phone... and I am sure that during the course of the conversation that he is identified by himself or Crystal. I don't understand the supposed importance of an affidavit of something that is factual on its face.

The audio recording is evidence that should be preserved. The State has control over it, and ergo an obligation to preserve it and make it available to Ms. Mangum... in my humble opinion.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
" If Milton said what Mangum claims he said and if it's true,"

Two big ifs. Could Crystal have misunderstood him? Could he have said this to justify himself for having (in her mind at least) contributed to locking her up? From what I see, she called him to berate him; it's not as if he had called her first.

August 3, 2018 at 1:50 PM


Anony, please permit me to provide you with some elucidation, as you are bereft of the facts involving the phone conversation.

On Thursday, March 29, 2018, Mangum received a letter from a gentleman who was a mutual friend of Mangum and Milton Walker. In his letter he placed his phone number and asked Crystal to call him.

On Friday, March 30, 2018, the following day, Crystal called the man and during the course of their conversation he mentioned that Milton wanted her to give him a call... and he provided Mangum with the phone number.

Mangum, who had at this time not spoken to Milton for years, called him on the phone per his request. Mangum categorized the phone call as one in which he repeatedly apologized to her and voluntarily made the admission of lying on the stand because he was threatened by Officer Marianne Bond.

Consider yourself elucidated. Notify me if additional clarity is required.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Milton, why did you do this to me? You're supposed to be my friend, and you said things ta got me locked up."
"I'm sorry, Crystal, it's just that that woman, Bond, threatened to lock me up if I didn't say what she wanted me to say. I'M SORRY!

August 3, 2018 at 5:12 PM


Anony, I think you hit the gist of the conversation on the head... sounds like it could be verbatim. According to Crystal's account, that is essentially how the conversation unfolded.

Hopefully, the conversation will be preserved and released to Mangum and the public one day soon.

Dr. Caligari said...

Abe, what if Milton were to deny or refuse what he clearly stated on the audio recording of the phone call... then what? Records can prove that Crystal placed the phone call to Milton's phone... and I am sure that during the course of the conversation that he is identified by himself or Crystal. I don't understand the supposed importance of an affidavit of something that is factual on its face.

The statement was made out of court and not under oath. It is inadmissible in evidence.

The audio recording is evidence that should be preserved. The State has control over it, and ergo an obligation to preserve it and make it available to Ms. Mangum... in my humble opinion.

It is not "evidence" of anything because it is not admissible.

Anonymous said...


Sid,

"Abe, what if Milton were to deny or refuse what he clearly stated on the audio recording of the phone call... then what?"

Then the phone call doesn't matter. It is unsworn hearsay. Milton has to swear that what he told Mangum was the truth. People tell white lies all the time to make other people feel good or spare their feelings, or to exculpate themselves from blame.

If Milton said what Mangum claims he said on the phone call, and if it's the truth, then he has to be willing to swear to the truth of it - either in an affidavit, or in a hearing. But, you won't even get a hearing w/o an affidavit.

Even if you get an affidavit from Milton (which you are apparently unable or unwilling to obtain) and Milton swears to in court, you are far from having Mangum out. Milton will be subjected to cross examination in court. Plus, you have to overcome Milton's prior court testimony, his years of silence, and the testimony of Officer Bond, and any other witnesses the state might produce, that no threats were made to Milton in exchange for his testimony.

It is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, at this point to prove that Milton was threatened into giving false testimony against Mangum.

The case is a million to one long shot even with an affidavit and testimony from Milton. It doesn't even get out of the gate without it.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
Abe, what if Milton were to deny or refuse what he clearly stated on the audio recording of the phone call... then what? Records can prove that Crystal placed the phone call to Milton's phone... and I am sure that during the course of the conversation that he is identified by himself or Crystal. I don't understand the supposed importance of an affidavit of something that is factual on its face.

The statement was made out of court and not under oath. It is inadmissible in evidence.

The audio recording is evidence that should be preserved. The State has control over it, and ergo an obligation to preserve it and make it available to Ms. Mangum... in my humble opinion.

It is not "evidence" of anything because it is not admissible.

August 4, 2018 at 3:13 PM


Dr. Caligari, I respectfully disagree with your premise about admissibility of evidence. For example, if a video was taken that included an audio with a confession of guilt, is it your position that it would not be admissible because the statement was not given under oath?

But, it seems as though you agree with me that the State should preserve the audio recording of the phone conversation? You didn't dispute it.

Nifong Supporter said...



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sid,

"Abe, what if Milton were to deny or refuse what he clearly stated on the audio recording of the phone call... then what?"

Then the phone call doesn't matter. It is unsworn hearsay. Milton has to swear that what he told Mangum was the truth. People tell white lies all the time to make other people feel good or spare their feelings, or to exculpate themselves from blame.

If Milton said what Mangum claims he said on the phone call, and if it's the truth, then he has to be willing to swear to the truth of it - either in an affidavit, or in a hearing. But, you won't even get a hearing w/o an affidavit.

Even if you get an affidavit from Milton (which you are apparently unable or unwilling to obtain) and Milton swears to in court, you are far from having Mangum out. Milton will be subjected to cross examination in court. Plus, you have to overcome Milton's prior court testimony, his years of silence, and the testimony of Officer Bond, and any other witnesses the state might produce, that no threats were made to Milton in exchange for his testimony.

It is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, at this point to prove that Milton was threatened into giving false testimony against Mangum.

The case is a million to one long shot even with an affidavit and testimony from Milton. It doesn't even get out of the gate without it.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

August 5, 2018 at 8:57 AM


Hey, Abe.

You miss the forest for the tree. You fail to consider the damaging trial testimony of Walker at trial and conditions under which he testified. First and foremost, Milton did not want to testify against his friend Mangum. He told the judge so, but the judge ordered him to answer questions put forth by the prosecutor. As an unwilling witness, his testimony was especially damaging against Crystal Mangum because he placed a knife in her hand in the 2010 episode. However, both of the police officers at the 2010 scene, who allegedly restrained Mangum who was allegedly lunging towards Walker, testified that they did not see Mangum with a knife. Ergo, it is most likely true that Mangum did not have a knife in the 2010 incident and that Walker's testimony on this important point was false.

The question you need to ask is: Why would a friend of Mangum who was reluctant to testify against her, make a false statement that would make her look guilty in the 2011 incident? The reason he gave over the recent phone call is that he lied about Mangum because he was threatened by Officer Bond. That explanation, given over the phone, spontaneously and unscripted, is the most reasonable one. It is not that unusual for police officers to force false testimony or even false confessions from civilians in a trumped-up vindictive prosecution.

Anonymous said...

Sid said,

"For example, if a video was taken that included an audio with a confession of guilt, is it your position that it would not be admissible because the statement was not given under oath?"

I believe that would be considered an admission against interest and an exception to hearsay. Lawyers, please feel free to correct me.

Also, I believe even a taped confession has to be supported by some evidence indicating that the crime which the person confessed to had been committed and the person confessing committed it. Again, lawyers, if I am wrong, please correct me.

But you don't have an audio or video of Milton recanting his testimony, or even a statement from Milton. All you have Mangum telling you what she claims Milton told her during a phone call. That and a token will get you on the subway.

Even if you had some admissible evidence that Milton wishes to recant his prior testimony, you will also have to overcome Milton's previous sworn testimony in court and the testimony of the police that Officer Bonds did not coerce or threaten Milton.

You are losing on 8/15, and losing badly. Book it.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

Dr. Caligari said...

Dr. Caligari, I respectfully disagree with your premise about admissibility of evidence. For example, if a video was taken that included an audio with a confession of guilt, is it your position that it would not be admissible because the statement was not given under oath?


An out-of-court statement by an opposing party is an exception to the hearsay rule. Say I'm suspected of killing Cock Robin. If the police interrogate me and I confess, the prosecution can use that tape against me at trial. If the police interrogate me and I say, "no, I didn't kill him, I have an alibi--I was in San Diego that day", I cannot use that tape at trial; I will have to take the witness stand, swear under oath that I was in San Diego and be cross-examined.

As to your second question, it's always a good idea for a party to preserve evidence, or even something that isn't directly evidence but might lead to the discovery of evidence, once an issue is raised about it. That would be prudent, but I'm not sure if the prison is legally required to preserve this tape, or if you properly put them on notice that the tape shouuld be preserved.

Anonymous said...

And, as has been repeatedly noted - you need the Affidavit from Milton to support the MAR to even get to the point of the Court considering the recording. Plus, you need to validate the recording. How do you know it was Milton? Crystal?

You don't even have a sworn statement from her. You literally have zero admissible evidence to support your MAR, so it will be summarily denied. You need an affidavit from Mangum about the conversation. An affidavit from Milton would be better.

You have been told all of this, and ignore it, which just proves your goal is abuse and manipulation, not help.

Doogie Howser said...

Dr. Harr,

I would like to purchase a crying towel for you to present to Abe Froman on Wednesday. Can you suggest a color?

guiowen said...

Doogie
By all means get a Blue Devil towel.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid said,

"For example, if a video was taken that included an audio with a confession of guilt, is it your position that it would not be admissible because the statement was not given under oath?"

I believe that would be considered an admission against interest and an exception to hearsay. Lawyers, please feel free to correct me.

Also, I believe even a taped confession has to be supported by some evidence indicating that the crime which the person confessed to had been committed and the person confessing committed it. Again, lawyers, if I am wrong, please correct me.

But you don't have an audio or video of Milton recanting his testimony, or even a statement from Milton. All you have Mangum telling you what she claims Milton told her during a phone call. That and a token will get you on the subway.

Even if you had some admissible evidence that Milton wishes to recant his prior testimony, you will also have to overcome Milton's previous sworn testimony in court and the testimony of the police that Officer Bonds did not coerce or threaten Milton.

You are losing on 8/15, and losing badly. Book it.

Abe Froman
Chicago, IL

August 7, 2018 at 6:44 AM


Hey, Abe.

What I have now may not be admissible (Mangum's assertion that Milton Walker recanted his trial testimony during a phone call in late March 2018). However, that recorded phone conversation, I believe, is admissible as evidence, and that is why it has been brought to the attention of the court and the Department of Public Safety. We want the conversation's recording to be preserved and transcribed for Crystal.

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
Dr. Caligari, I respectfully disagree with your premise about admissibility of evidence. For example, if a video was taken that included an audio with a confession of guilt, is it your position that it would not be admissible because the statement was not given under oath?


An out-of-court statement by an opposing party is an exception to the hearsay rule. Say I'm suspected of killing Cock Robin. If the police interrogate me and I confess, the prosecution can use that tape against me at trial. If the police interrogate me and I say, "no, I didn't kill him, I have an alibi--I was in San Diego that day", I cannot use that tape at trial; I will have to take the witness stand, swear under oath that I was in San Diego and be cross-examined.

As to your second question, it's always a good idea for a party to preserve evidence, or even something that isn't directly evidence but might lead to the discovery of evidence, once an issue is raised about it. That would be prudent, but I'm not sure if the prison is legally required to preserve this tape, or if you properly put them on notice that the tape shouuld be preserved.

August 7, 2018 at 8:32 AM


Because the prison has possession of the recording that provides evidence favorable to Mangum, I believe that it should be responsible for preserving it if timely notified of its importance. That is what Mangum did.

Regarding Milton Walker taking the witness stand to testify and be cross-examined, that is all moot if the recording evidence is not preserved and is deleted. So preservation of the recording is a priority rather than arranging for Walker to provide an affidavit or testify in court.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
And, as has been repeatedly noted - you need the Affidavit from Milton to support the MAR to even get to the point of the Court considering the recording. Plus, you need to validate the recording. How do you know it was Milton? Crystal?

You don't even have a sworn statement from her. You literally have zero admissible evidence to support your MAR, so it will be summarily denied. You need an affidavit from Mangum about the conversation. An affidavit from Milton would be better.

You have been told all of this, and ignore it, which just proves your goal is abuse and manipulation, not help.

August 7, 2018 at 10:07 AM


Anony, first of all, the phone records will identify both the caller as being from prison and the phone number called as being one belonging to Milton Walker. So identification of the individuals on both ends of the call should not be a difficult barrier to pass.

As repeatedly stated, I am trying to preserve the recorded phone call at present. It lays the groundwork for the MAR.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Doogie Howser said...
Dr. Harr,

I would like to purchase a crying towel for you to present to Abe Froman on Wednesday. Can you suggest a color?

August 11, 2018 at 12:03 PM


Hey, Doogie.

Abe is from Chicago, so I don't know if the city has any specific color scheme. Maybe he will see your comment and reply with his color preference. As is suggested by gui in a comment responding to you, Duke Blue Devil blue is always a good choice... and is actually the default color for all crying towels of which I send.

It is a kind gesture on your behalf and I would recommend that you send it by Express as Mangum's day of emancipation is at hand.

Dr. Caligari said...

Regarding Milton Walker taking the witness stand to testify and be cross-examined, that is all moot if the recording evidence is not preserved and is deleted. So preservation of the recording is a priority rather than arranging for Walker to provide an affidavit or testify in court.

Wrong on multiple levels. The tape recording is not admissible in evidence. Even if it's preserved, the judge won't listen to it.

If Walker takes the stand, that will be admissible, whether the tape recording is preserved or not.

guiowen said...

I think what Sidney means is, with the recording available, he can force Milton to testify. Milton might find himself in between a rock (the recording) and a hard place (his testimony from 2013), but he should have thought about it back then. A really good friend would have refused to testify, even if it meant going to jail for contempt.

Doogie Howser said...

Dr. Harr,

Where should I send the towel?

Doogie Howser said...

Dr. Harr,

I suggest you wear your J4N shirt at the hearing,so that the media types can’t miss you.

Nifong Supporter said...


Notice to Anony about a rumor. Don't believe it. If it were true, it would be plastered all over the media.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Doogie Howser said...
Dr. Harr,

I suggest you wear your J4N shirt at the hearing,so that the media types can’t miss you.

August 14, 2018 at 3:27 AM


Hey, Doogie.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will definitely be taking a J4N tee-shirt with me to court tomorrow, but will only plan on donning it in celebration following the judge's ruling.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
I think what Sidney means is, with the recording available, he can force Milton to testify. Milton might find himself in between a rock (the recording) and a hard place (his testimony from 2013), but he should have thought about it back then. A really good friend would have refused to testify, even if it meant going to jail for contempt.

August 12, 2018 at 11:56 AM


Hey, gui, mon ami.

Actually, unlike the State, I would not try and force Milton to testify. To an extent, I consider him a victim of the State, too, as he felt threatened to falsely testify against his former girlfriend at her trial. It is my hope that his testimony will be moot following a positive outcome at tomorrow's hearing.

Anonymous said...

What would you celebrate? Literally the best case for you is the judge allows the lawsuit to proceed to Discovery. He won’t, but that’s the best case. Nothing else would be addressed.

Nifong Supporter said...


Dr. Caligari said...
Regarding Milton Walker taking the witness stand to testify and be cross-examined, that is all moot if the recording evidence is not preserved and is deleted. So preservation of the recording is a priority rather than arranging for Walker to provide an affidavit or testify in court.

Wrong on multiple levels. The tape recording is not admissible in evidence. Even if it's preserved, the judge won't listen to it.

If Walker takes the stand, that will be admissible, whether the tape recording is preserved or not.

August 12, 2018 at 10:33 AM


Hey, Dr. Caligari.

I am no legal scholar, so my views are based mostly on common sense and Sherlockian deduction. Per my response to gui, it is my hope that everything involving Milton will be moot with a favorable ruling at tomorrow's hearing.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Doogie Howser said...
Dr. Harr,

Where should I send the towel?

August 12, 2018 at 7:32 PM


Hey, Doogie.

Once the initial shock wears off, and before his descent into profound despondency set in, it is my hope that Abe will have the presence of mind to send me his mailing address. Once I have it, then I will give you my mailing address and you can send the towel to me. I will then mail the towel directly to Abe.

Nifong Supporter said...


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

As you all know, tomorrow, August 15th, is a very important day. No, I'm not talking about it being Napoleon's birthday... tomorrow there will be a Motions Hearing at the Durham County Courthouse at 2:30 p.m. Up until that time, I will be extremely busy preparing for the event, so this will be my last commentary entry until after tomorrow's ruling. I will continue to post your comments, however, as doing so does not require expenditure of much time or energy or access to a laptop.

Let us all pray that tomorrow true justice will prevail in the courtroom... however that may be individually defined; but it is my hope that by tomorrow evening Crystal Gail Mangum will be a free person.

Anonymous said...

"As you all know, tomorrow, August 15th, is a very important day. I thought you were referring to the fact that the "Macarena" single was released by Los del Rio...

guiowen said...

Actually, August 15th is the feast of the Assumption. I hope you have not forgotten this.

kenhyderal said...

Maria Speculum JustitiƦ, on the Feast of your Assumption into Heaven intercede for Crystal who, like your son, was wrongly convicted by the powers that be.