Cooper, Congressmen, City choose Cruelty over Compassion for Crystal

Crystal Mangum: victimized by Carpetbagger Jihad justice and the media

Wednesday afternoon I had to rummage through the garbage in order to find Tuesday’s edition of the News & Observer. Although I had been through Tuesday’s paper a day earlier, a friend told me of an article on Ms. Mangum that I had evidently missed. And sure enough, tucked away deep in the bowels of the second section on page 7 was an article titled, “Mangum faces arson charge.” Maybe I missed it because I was halfway expecting the article to be on the front page or second page of the “Triangle & Co.” section, and not hidden amongst the obituaries.

To recap what transpired on Monday, April 5, 2010, for the many who did not find the News & Observer article: the hearing for Ms. Mangum which was finally to be held regarding the alleged crimes for which she was charged two months earlier in February, was postponed because the assistant district attorney was sick. The public defender representing Ms. Mangum was expecting the hearing to take place the following day. However, late Monday afternoon, the prosecutors went before a Durham County grand jury which issued indictments against her on the following: first-degree arson, three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile, injury to personal property, and resisting a public officer.

It is of interest to note that even though police said she tried to kill her boyfriend and was charged at the time of her arrest with attempted first-degree murder, no such charge was sought by prosecutors from the grand jury. Miraculously, other charges which were heaped on Ms. Mangum on her arrest but were not considered by the grand jury included: three counts of misdemeanor child abuse, resisting arrest, identity theft, communicating threats, and assault and battery. Why, you might ask, were these charges not sought before the grand jury? Answer: Because the Durham police and prosecutors knew the charges were false and that they could not substantiate them. However, filing the bogus charges did accomplish its intent, which was to form the basis for obtaining an outrageously high bond which Ms. Mangum and her family could not afford. That would ensure that Ms. Mangum would spend a significantly long time in jail. In short, the bogus charges were filed against Ms. Mangum for punitive reasons only… to see that she received as much jail time as possible. There is no doubt in my mind that the prosecutors never seriously considered bringing charges before the grand jury other than the ones they eventually did bring against Ms. Mangum on Monday. In order for the judge to hand down a $1million bond, some serious charges, such as attempted first degree murder, needed to be in play.

Unfortunately, this unfair and inappropriate use of filing punitive charges against someone based on that person’s past acts, is unjust and unethical. Make no doubt about it, Ms. Mangum was excessively punished by Durham police, prosecutors, and judges because of her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. This is no secret… everyone knows it to be the truth, but no one, including those in the media or public officials, will speak openly about it. Attorneys licensed by the North Carolina State Bar are particularly reticent to speak about anything related to the Duke Lacrosse case, because they are terrified by that very same unregulated agency that has control over their licenses and livelihoods. I am sure that everyone connected to the legal travesty that has enveloped Ms. Mangum will deny, with a straight face, that Ms. Mangum’s treatment had anything to do with her past. This situation is not unlike the Las Vegas judge who sentenced O. J. Simpson to excessively long prison sentences when he was convicted in what was obviously a sting operation. She went on record and upfront stated that the sentence given to Mr. Simpson had absolutely nothing to do with the murder of his wife and her friend Ron Goldman. But everyone knows that it was nothing more than payback. And that is what Durham is engaged in with its actions against Ms. Mangum… nothing more than payback.

What is really idiotic is that the cash-strapped city of Durham, by going after Ms. Mangum because of her role in the Duke Lacrosse case, is feeding into the Carpetbagger Jihad Movement’s vendetta goals. And it is the very people behind this vengeful and avaricious movement who are seeking thirty million dollars from the city of Durham, and has already cost the city multi-millions of dollars in attorneys’ fees to defend itself (from them). Then the Carpetbagger families of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants have the unmitigated gall to tell the media that they are not seeking $10 million for each of their sons out of greed, but they are doing it to improve the city of Durham’s criminal justice system. How?... by diverting moneys from services and salaries of the Durham Police department to pay lawyers’ fees in defending the city against their extortionistic lawsuits? Well, the people are not buying that line of reasoning, no more than they believe that the Las Vegas judge sentenced O. J. Simpson solely on the merits of the particular incident for which he was charged, and not taking the unsolved murder of his wife and her friend into consideration. Nor are Tar Heelians buying the Carpetbaggers’ altruistic reasons for seeking a total of $30 million from Durham, anymore than they believe that the domestic violence charges and bail against Ms. Mangum are based solely on that case and not related to her role in the Duke Lacrosse case.

Unfortunately, the law in North Carolina is all too often used unjustly and punitively by police, prosecutors, and courts to exact revenge from individuals who are currently being charged and treated based upon past acts and not based upon merits alone of the case at hand. The Durham City and County should be ashamed of its involvement in the despicable, selective, and unjust actions against Ms. Mangum. Furthermore, it should be embarrassed for carrying out the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda… an agenda which starkly runs against the city’s own best interests.

As far as the media goes, I must at least give the News & Observer a few points for writing an article, even though it was very effectively concealed and not splashed over the front pages of the local section as was the news of Ms. Mangum’s arrest two months earlier. I was unaware of any of the other local mainstream media outlets that reported on Ms. Mangum’s arrest, doing a follow-up story about the grand jury indictment. This kind of reporting (picking and choosing which of the stories related to a case to promote and which ones to bury) is not uncommonly used by the biased media.

The N & O’s extreme bias is evident by the article’s final paragraph which reads: “Mangum never faced any charges for falsely accusing the three former Duke lacrosse players.” Now although I do not concede that the charges made by Ms. Mangum in the Duke Lacrosse case investigation were false, the article’s final statement suggests that individuals who make false statements are routinely charged for it. I believe that the News & Observer would be hard pressed to find an instance in North Carolina where an alleged rape victim was charged with making false accusations during the investigation of a criminal complaint.

Million dollar bail… a case comparison

On Wednesday, February 24, 2010, in Littleton, Colorado, a thirty two year old man went to the parking lot of a middle school, took out a bolt action hunting rifle, and began shooting at students. He wounded two children under the age of ten before he was tackled and subdued by a math teacher.

He was jailed on $1 million bail on “suspicion” of attempted murder.

A week prior to that, in the cash-strapped city of Durham, North Carolina, Crystal Mangum was involved in a domestic dispute with her boyfriend, when her daughter became concerned for her safety and dialed 9-1-1. According to police, Ms. Mangum threw punches and objects at her friend, in addition to scratching him. The boyfriend was not taken to the hospital for medical treatment.

She was jailed on $1 million bail on a “first degree” attempted murder charge.

In the Colorado case, investigators are trying to figure out why the gunman was exhibiting “bizarre behavior.”

In the North Carolina case, meantime, the bail was reduced to a mere $250,000.00, however, the judge informed Ms. Mangum that if she did manage to make bail, that she would be placed under house arrest.

Why the disparity in the two cases with the same initial $1 million bail? Bail and the criminal charge levied in Colorado case seems to be appropriate and tied to reality. The North Carolina case, on the other hand, is draconian in comparison to its charge and bail and has no link to reason or logic.

The reasons behind the despicable treatment of the North Carolina justice system against Ms. Mangum have their core roots in the Duke Lacrosse case. Judges, police, and prosecutors in Durham, either conscientiously or sub-conscientiously are following the carpetbagger jihad call to action. This is the equivalent of an order to destroy anything or anybody sympathetic or supportive of Mike Nifong… or anyone who dared cross the privileged Duke Lacrosse defendant sons of the carpetbagger families. When I expressed this in a recent blog, one commenter asked me what proof I had that the harsh treatment of Ms. Mangum was somehow related to the Duke Lacrosse case. I cannot offer the questioner any physical forensic proof to backup my beliefs about this issue… instead I turn to logic, reason, and common sense. As I stated in rebuttal, why else would the system lower the boom on someone involved in a domestic dispute… coincidence?

I then challenged my commenter to explain to me why he/she thought Ms. Mangum should be singled out for such excessive treatment. If someone can give me an explanation that is more convincing than my “carpetbagger jihad” premise, then I will gladly accept it.

Durham needs to stop kowtowing to the carpetbaggers

In recent days, many in the cash-strapped city of Durham have unabashedly embarrassed themselves by kowtowing to the malicious vendetta-style jihad called upon by the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Sparked by Rae Evans’s call to arms during an interview on CBS – TV’s “60 Minutes,” she directed the focus of their ire on former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, when she stated that because he picked on the “wrong families” (wealthy, privileged, and not people of color), he was “going to pay every day for the rest of his life.” However the scope of this desire for revenge goes far beyond Mr. Nifong, and encompasses anyone who is supportive or gives sanctuary to the Nifongs. Also in their crosshairs are individuals who in any way, shape, or form contributed to the prosecution of their precious sons. And prime among this latter group is the Duke Lacrosse accuser, Crystal Mangum.

Late in the evening of Wednesday, February 17, 2010, a 9-1-1 call was placed by Crystal Mangum’s 9 year old daughter, fearing for the safety of her mother who was in an alleged altercation with a man with whom she had been in a relationship. Durham police, under the spell of the carpetbagger jihad, naturally focused on Ms. Mangum and with their mouths watering started ringing up the tab. Ms. Mangum was accused of scratching, punching, and throwing things at her boyfriend, which obviously warrants a charge of attempted first degree murder… right? Then she allegedly said to her boyfriend, “I’m going to stab you”… definitely communicating a threat. Resisting arrest is a good catch-all vague charge that is indiscriminately used, overused, and is useful to automatically put a suspect in a bad light with the media and public. Now the Durham police probably knew the identity of Ms. Mangum before arriving at the scene of the 9-1-1 call, and when Ms. Mangum allegedly gave the name “Marella Mangum,” they tacked on a charge of identity theft… very creative on the part of Durham’s finest. There are other ridiculous charges leveled at Ms. Mangum that are so absurd they defy comprehension.

Upset with her boyfriend she takes some of his clothes, places them in the bath tub, and sets them on fire. Now the Durham officers, who are to my understanding present during this event, stand around and call the fire department instead of turning on water in the bath tub to put out the fire. The delay in time waiting for the fire department to arrive provides plenty of time for smoke to really inflict smoke-related damage throughout the house. And, of course, she is charged with five counts of arson, for each article of clothing burned. (To my understanding, if a house is set on fire, the arsonist is charged with one count of arson, not a count for each item consumed by the fire. Therefore, Ms. Mangum’s charge is similar to that of an arsonist setting five houses ablaze?)

Undoubtedly there have been thousands upon thousands of domestic dispute calls in which couples have attacked one another and made threatening remarks, but to my knowledge they have not been charged with “attempted first degree murder.” Only the selective justice system of North Carolina has chosen to singularly charge Ms. Mangum thusly. In addition, I am unaware of a party in a domestic dispute being held under a million dollar bond… other than Crystal Mangum. The disparity of her treatment compared with others in domestic situations is uncannily similar to the disparity of the treatment Mike Nifong suffered… the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933 (the latter a fact that the media goes to extreme measures to keep hidden from the public).

The lunacy of events in the cash-strapped city proceeds as a judge reduces Ms. Mangum’s bond from a million dollars to merely $250,000.00. But then he goes another step further by ruling that if she is able to meet bond, she is to be under house arrest. I’ve never heard of such.

And while the Durham police, court, media, and Durhamites who are under the spell of the biased media gleefully celebrate the misfortune that has befallen Ms. Mangum, the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants continue their avaricious quest to appropriate thirty million dollars from the cash-strapped city… a city which has already wasted millions of taxpayer dollars in attorney fees to defend the city against the greedy ones. It is truly an irony… the position in which the city of Durham finds itself. It is a position in which the city does the bidding of the carpetbaggers with gusto, while at the same time it is trying to defend itself from them. It reminds me of the scene in the movie “Animal House” in which the Kevin Bacon fraternity pledge goes through a formal initiation in which he receives a swat on the rear and then remarks, “Thank you, Sir. May I have another?” When is the cash-strapped city finally going to stop kowtowing to the carpetbaggers and tell them that enough is enough? For them to do so, all they need to do is allow intellect and logic to rule over hype and emotion.

Duke LAXer bluff against Durham fails

There is a saying that goes something as follows: “Be careful what you wish for.” Buoyed by their unimaginable success in shaking down Duke University in the amount of seven mil for each of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants, greedy attorneys representing their greedier clients, went after the cash-strapped city of Durham seeking more dinero. Their reasoning being that if a school is willing to shell out a total of $21,000,000.00 in an out of court settlement to make the notoriety of a vague complaint against it by the “alleged aggrieved” Duke student athlete party-goers go away, then surely a big city, like Durham, would have no problem turning over $30 million for a similar deal. Call it hush money, or nuisance money, if you will, but the plaintiffs obviously considered it to be easy money.

Having believed too much of the biased media’s take on the Duke Lacrosse case, they launched their civil case aggressively and with the assistance of the favorable media. However, when the attorneys realized that the city was not going to rollover, as they had expected, reality began to set in, and they had to take an objective look at their case. Their conclusion, I would bet, is that they had none. First of all, nearly a third of the lacrosse team members had run-ins with the law. They, of course, were smoothed over by an unwritten protocol the university had in place with prosecutors in the city. (The problem of the Duke Lacrosse case occurred when then Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong refused to play by those slanted unwritten rules… a major reason he was persecuted and made an example of.) Duke lacrosse team captain Dave Evans, one of the Duke Lacrosse defendants even pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. Another defendant, Collin Finnerty, had assault charges on his record for his part in the beating of a person presumed to be gay. Then, the lacrosse player who phoned the escort service seeking the services of two exotic dancers (strippers) used a false name and stated the event was a bachelor party of four or five. The pretenses under which the dancers were hired were false, especially when they knew that the event was a spring break beer party for nearly fifty young men with raging hormones. As if that is not enough, factor in the fact that the lacrosse player who made the arrangement requested two “white” dancers, and two African American dancers were showed up (the lacrosse team had only one African American player who did not attend the party). Under these circumstances, it is not hard to believe testimony from neighbors that the partygoers were hurling racial epithets at the dancers as they left.

The media did its best to downplay the negative aspects of the actions of the partygoers, but if the trial were to go to court, other negativity would surely be exposed. For example, I have it from a secondhand source that there was drug use at the party (I cannot personally vouch for the accuracy); therefore, if he case was to go to trial, this would most definitely be brought up, if it is true. Also, the evidence collected by the Attorney General’s Office would be made available; evidence of which it refuses to release copies to the accuser and her representative. Evidence presented to the media by defense attorneys, such as the time stamped photographs would come under scrutiny for signs of possible tampering, etc. And once the police were called, the partygoers scattered like cockroaches deserting a sinking ship, so the place was essentially emptied by the time authorities arrived.

In seeking damages, attorneys for the three defendants take aim at police, doctors, nurses, and practically everyone who may have spoken out against the Duke lacrosse team or its actions. But these attorneys also know, about the reputation of the Duke lacrosse team when it comes to partying. They have such a raucous history in the Duke neighborhood when it comes to hosting parties, that the president of the university had warned its team coach to rein in its players… something he was incapable of doing. Yes, the possibility of hitting the jackpot when taking the case to trial seems bleak. Especially if one is looking for a big payout. The most likely outcome of such a trial would be exposing the Duke Lacrosse partygoers for what they were… and that is not too flattering.

So, now, after so much bluster and bravado, it seems as though the attorneys for the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants have decided to just allow things to die down. Yes, they succeeded against Duke University, but they bluffed once to often when they took on the cash-strapped city of Durham. The city is eagerly awaiting the confrontation, conversely. Stay tuned.