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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
You logical - oh come now!
Where is the logic in saying the results of a rigged lineup justified nifong's indictment and charging of three men for cgm's rape when there was no evidence of a rape, no evidence of any intimate contact between cgm and the accused?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Why was michael jerkmaine burch not jailed instead of being allowed to make bond, go out and rape again.
nifong was running the DA office when mjb did his thing. He had more probable cause to arrest mjb than he did to arrest the Lacrosse players.
more incivility for crazy etc. sidney:
The proper terms would be "consciously or unconsciously". Any form of conscientious is clearly inappropriate in that context.
You must have learned grammar the same way you learned the first name of David Evans' mother, the gallant and courageous Rae Evans.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Do you really believe that anyone but yourself, your gang(sters)of4 and nifong himself are sympathetic to nifong?
Of course there are biased prejudiced racist etc. injustice58, silly chicken killy and the anonymous irrelephant in the room. They have not spoken up for nifong in months.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
If you were capable of logic and common sense you would not be alleging a "carpetbagger jihad" against nifong over the Duke case. You, by your own admission, are not knowledgeable about the evidence in the case. It is neither logical nor common sense to express opinions about something you know nothing about.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Please tell us, by what logic and common sense have you determined the Lacrosse players should have been suspected of raping cgm.
There was no evidence of a rape to begin with.
There was no evidence of any intimate contact between cgm and any Lacrosse player.
cgm's allegations were not in and of themselves credible. Or maybe I should ask, which of cgm's statements were credible, that she was raped or that she was not raped? Explain your answer.
There was exculpatory evidence, non Lacrosse player DNA on cgm's person.
nifong himself admitted he had no credible evidence to justify charging the Lacrosse players.
Logic and common sense would compel a reasonable person to conclude the whole Duke case was bogus from the start.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
What relevance does this abominable case in Colorado have to the Duke case.
Do you say the Duke case was abominable? What made it abominable was that nifong charged three innocent falsely accused men with a felony without probable cause.
Do you doubt the Colorado authorities have probable cause to charge the shooter?
Edited Feb 25, 2010 9:27 PM
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
When have you ever shown any common sense in this blog?
Do you think it was when you accused the Seligman family of bribing Moez Elmostafa? I say again, not even nifong believed that.
Was it when you claimed nifong's pre indictment statements were a mild attempt to get team members to come forth with what they knew. What they knew was, no crime had been committed. Nifong did not want that kind of information. nifong condemned the Lacrosse players, presumed their guilt, attempted undermining of their fundamental Constitutional rights and tried to intimidate team members to provide incriminating testimony against other team members.
You were not showing logic and common sense when you accused the "carpet bagger" jihad of influencing the arrest of cgm. Hardly. You were lying.
February 25, 2010 9:16 AM
Edited Feb 25, 2010 9:30 PM
Dr. Harr -- I'm pretty sure that a previous arrest record is also a determining factor in both the amount of bail and conditions around release on bail....But hey, you might want to ask a lawyer....Of course, you probably should've done that BEFORE you wrote this.
In the words of Rae Evans (whom you like to quote so much) "I am thinking about so deeply this young woman who has been abused by men all her life, and nobody has abused her more than Mike Nifong,"
Dr. Harr -- Wouldn't this be considered a domestic violence case? Hasn't North Carolina toughened their domestic violence laws in the recent past? I've read somewhere (sorry, can't remember where) that certain aspects of domestic violence cases (like bail) may be harsher than most other criminal charges.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Even for someone with the traits of logic and common sense, it is not possible to determine something via thoe traits.
Hypothetical situation: Jane Doe is raped. The prosecutor charges Peter Poe. None of Peter Poe's DNA is recovered from Ms. Doe.
Ms. Doe says Mr. Poe used a condom. That is a logical explanation of how a rape can occur and not leave any DNA.
It is also a logical explanation for the absence of DNA that no rape occurred. I remind you, the Defendant is not required to prove no rape occurred. It is the prosecutor's obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the rape did occur and that Peter Poe perpetrated it.
So how can one determine what happened? The only way is to provide proof. Although it is the prosecutor and not the defendant who is obligated to provide proof, the defendant could provide proof. He could prove without any doubt he was not in town the time the rape took place. If the prosecutor recovered a condom which had DNA from both Jane Doe and Peter Poe, it would indicate maybe the rape did take place.
You need proof. Your use of logic and common sense is not meaningful.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
nifong intimidated Kim Roberts after she first said cgm's claim of rape was a crock. nifong attempted to intimidate members of the Lacrosse team to incriminate other members. nifong tried to intimidate Moez Elmostafa to change his story which supported Reade Seligman's alibi(remember not even nifong believed the Seligmans tried to buy off Mr. Elmostafa).
So I wonder, has nifong intimidated you into producing all these pro nifong statements, including all the lies. I wonder what nifong has on you.
To DeHall:
First, regarding the increasing toughness of domestic violence rulings... have you ever heard of anyone involved in a domestic violence incident being charged with attempted first degree murder and being saddled with a $1 million bail? Outside of Ms. Mangum, I haven't.
With regards to Rae Evans's quote, how can she possibly state that Mike Nifong abused her more than the other men in her life who physically and emotionally attacked her. What did Mr. Nifong do to abuse Ms. Mangum? That is my question for Ms. Evans. If you can answer it on her behalf, I would like to hear your explanation.
Sydney - Why the disparity in the two cases with the same initial $1 million bail?
You could start with 1,700 miles and 7 or 8 states, Sydney. Comparing bonds set in different states is ridiculous, but not beyond you, obviously.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Mrs. Evans compassionate statement shows cgm would have done better had she admitted her false accusations, apologized, and thrown in with the Lacrosse players.
Nifong Supporter:
How did Nifong abuse Crystal?
He used her for a "million dollars of free publicity"
"With regards to Rae Evans's quote, how can she possibly state that Mike Nifong abused her more than the other men in her life who physically and emotionally attacked her."
If she was raped, Nifong did everything within his power to assure that Crystals' rapist walked free.
Walt-in-Durham
Sidney,
This post, like its predecessor, is utterly irresponsible. I call for you to retract your last two posts.
Once again, you have misrepresented my comments. I ask for a correction.
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.
This statement is false. I asked what proof you had that the harsh treatment was dictated by the lacrosse defendants.
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.
I answered and provided a theory. You rejected it without comment.
When you asked for other possible explanations, I provided one in which I focused on the motivations of the Durham defendants and why they may have their own reasons for overcharging Ms. Mangum (i.e., avoiding her testimony on their roles in the frame). The Durham defendants, unlike the lacrosse players, obviously can control the DPD's actions. You rejected this theory out of hand without even the decency of a direct response. I conceded that the theory I presented has no proof. I focused on possible motivations. You ignored those motivations.
I presented the theory to stimulate a discussion. I noted that the DPD failed to undertake a bona fide investigation in one of the most highly publicized cases in its history and that the City has fought discovery in the players' lawsuits. I asked why, almost four years after the criminal case began, no one has explained how the DPD could have failed so completely in its responsibilities. I called for an investigation.
Despite your admission that you have not reviewed the wealth of publicly-available evidence and have no real knowledge of the case, you have somehow concluded that only the players have done anything wrong. You imply all other parties are blameless. When readers raise evidence that contradicts your conclusion, you either twist the evidence to concoct some hare-brained allegation that casts the players and their lawyers as the villainous masterminds of some far-reaching conspiracy or you ignore the evidence completely.
You make the valid claim that Ms. Mangum appears to have been excessively overcharged in the recent episode. Then you inexplicably blame it on...the players and their families. You admit that you have no proof. In your earlier post, you conceded that you found it difficult to understand why the City "does the bidding" of the players even as its defends itself against the players' lawsuits. However, you made no attempt to address this glaring inconsistency. Your own post thus demonstrated how completely baseless and convoluted your allegation really is. In this post, you merely repeat your irresponsible claims.
Sidney, these posts give readers additional reasons not to take you seriously.
Again, I focused on the Durham defendants' motivation for silencing Ms. Mangum, emphasizing the DPD's lack of a credible investigation. I ask that you reread my earlier comment. You asked for another explanation. I took the time to provide one. You at least owe me a response.
You have in prior posts defended the DPD investigation. In the past, I raised a number of questions about the DPD's investigation--with Mayor Bell, the members of the City Council, Judge Whichard, the members of the Whichard committee and Chief Lopez. No one answered any of these questions. As you have alleged of the Attorney General, the City appears to have "sealed" the records of their investigation.
Perhaps you will be willing to provide answers to my questions. I can post them as comments.
I take crazy etc. Sidney seriously.
He is seriously lacking in the ability to think logically and seriously lacking in common sense.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
nifong neglected to interview cgm about her alleged assault until 9 months into the case. That may not qualify as abuse. It certainly does not show a whole lot of concern on the part of nifong for cgm.
Dr. Harr-
Given her past history of violent crime (there is one-read her book), and that children were involved, she could have been held without bail. That is NC law. In that regard, she got off lighter than some.
In regards to charges, I'm convinced that she was hit with them in order for a plea arrangement to be made later. She'll plea down to all misdemeanors (since no weapon was involved), and it will save Durham time and money.
more for that paragon of illogic and common nonsense crazy etc. sidney:
In one of his earlier efforts, crazy etc. sidney claimed to have established a conspiratorial link between the Duke defendants and AG Roy Cooper. What did he find? There were direct meetings between Mr. Cooper and attorneys representing the Duke defendants, and that the Attorneys wanted their clients to be found innocent.
There is nothing at all unusual about Prosecution and Defense meeting directly before trial. There is nothing at all unusual for Defense attorneys to believe their clients innocent, especially when all the evidence points to innocence.
Had nifong met with the Duke Defendants' attorneys he might have spared himself the well deserved distinction of being the only prosecutor in NC history who was disbarred.
nifong, however, would have had to be able to accept exculpatory evidence for what it was, evidence which cast doubt on the Defendant's guilt. He would have been willing to drop the case if the exculpatory evidence was overwhelming.
It is obvious from the case that nifong had no intention of viewing or accepting exculpatory evidence, let alone allow it to become part of the case. He did conceal exculpatory DNA evidence from the defense. And he had publicly proclaimed that Lacrosse players were guilty of raping cgm even before he had anyone indicted.
The Defendants' attorneys wanted to show nifong the exculpatory evidence they had. If I remember correctly, nifong's attitude was, I don't want to meet with you unless your client wants to plead guilty.
You really have shown your lack of ability to think logically or use common sense, crazy etc. sidney.
Why do you refuse to show us what evidence there was to show a crime had been committed, and that Lacrosse players were the perps.
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
Let's get back to your attempt to incriminate Moez Elmostafa(by accusing him of taking a payoff from the Seligman family you were accusing him of obstruction of justice)
Do you realize the effort the Seligman family would have had to go to, in order to make a false alibi believable.
How do you think they could have altered the computerized records which showed that Mr. Elmostafa's activity as a cab driver. If Reade Seligman had not been in the cab, the records would have to be altered to show he was.
Do you have any evidence that the records were altered. Did nifong check the records?
more uncivility for crazy etc. sidney:
If you check your American History, particularly the history of the Reconstruction, you will find that black people cooperated with the carpetbaggers.
I guess you learned history in the same place you learned logic and common sense.
Aside from The Onion, this is the best satire site on the web.
8.8 earthquake hits Chile...it must be the Carpetbagger Jihad.
unbekannte asks:
Why was michael jerkmaine burch not jailed instead of being allowed to make bond, go out and rape again."
It's obvious...the Carpetbagger Jihad.
For anonymous February 27, 2010 7:31 AM.
Excellent.
Mock on.
Post a Comment