I owe a debt of gratitude to blog commenters “kenhyderal” and “Whatchoo talkin’ ‘bout, Sidney?” for their very interesting and informative exchange in the comment section of my previously posted blog. The exchange, edited for spelling and grammar, is presented below in its entirety, and deserves a serious look.
kenhyderal said...
When will Crystal's charges be disposed of? Is there no time limit as to when this comes to court? Will she, possibly, have any recourse against these extreme over-charges, if they do eventually get thrown out? I'm thinking in terms of, loss of employment, interruption of her education, separation from her children etc.
May 10, 2010 3:12 PM
Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Sidney? said...
kenhyderal said -When will Crystal's charges be disposed of?
Probably sometime this summer, kenhyderal. It looks like her attorney is hoping to get her 6 months, with time served. If she gets more, she may be moved to state jail.
Is there no time limit as to when this comes to court?
Welcome to North Carolina, ken, the state which has no speedy trial law. The DA also controls the docket, unlike any other state I have ever seen.
Reforming those two issues alone would help so many people of color and of limited means, yet folks like Sidney and the NC NAACP prefer to ignore those and make headlines when they get one person freed. Rev Barber does that because that's how he makes his money. Sidney does it because he doesn't know better.
I'm thinking in terms of, loss of employment, interruption of her education, separation from her children etc.
Employment - what job?
Education - NCCU will give her another sheepskin like they did her BA.
Children - her kids are safer now.
May 10, 2010 8:43 PM
kenhyderal said...
Six months!! I guarantee this incident would have resulted in less than one day in gaol in Canada. It would have been dealt with in Family Court or in a Magistrate's Court the following morning resulting in a fine most likely with time to pay and if requested by the victim a no-contact order. The rate of spousal abuse is lower in Canada. 2006 statistics from the USA show 124/1000 couples/year for males, assaulted and 122/1000 couples for females assaulted. In Canada in that year 113/1000 not differentiated by sex
May 10, 2010 9:56 PM
Both commenters make great points. I agree wholeheartedly with kenhyderal’s concerns about how the unjust incarceration of Crystal Mangum is impacting her life. Her incarceration is nothing more than vendetta justice maliciously designed to disrupt and upend her life. As was pointed out by Whatchoo, the lack of a speedy trial law coupled with the District Attorney controlling the docket enables prosecutors to make suspects serve time behind bars without them being convicted of a crime. This especially works well in cases where the prosecutor’s case is weak… the James Arthur Johnson case immediately comes to mind (held 39 months without a trial) and the Floyd Brown case (held 14 years without a trial), as well as the current fiasco involving Crystal Mangum.
Now, I am taking a giant leap of faith in believing Whatchoo without first confirming what he states, but it sounds like it is on the money. If his statements about those two issues are true, then he is absolutely correct when he stated that I was ignorant about it. I appreciate his bringing the issue to my attention, and I will work to see what I can to encourage the General Assembly to work to rectify this injustice. As regarding Reverend Barber’s motive, I am equally ignorant about that too.
Assistant District Attorney Angela Garcia-Lamarca is dragging out the prosecution of Crystal Mangum because she has no legitimate case. Consider the following: (1) the charge of felony attempted first degree murder on her arrest was not included in the grand jury indictment; (2) the misdemeanor simple assault and battery charge on arrest was not included in the grand jury indictment; (3) the misdemeanor communicating threats charge on arrest was not included in the grand jury indictment; and (4) the felony identity theft charge on arrest was not included in the grand jury indictment. These four serious charges, made at the time of arrest with the four additional charges on arrest and brought forth in the grand jury indictment, were responsible for laying groundwork for the million dollar bail.
Of the remaining four charges at arrest and entered in the grand jury indictment, take consideration of the following: (1) Felony first degree arson by definition requires that an occupied structure or building be set afire. There is no doubt that Ms. Mangum executed a controlled burn when she set fire to a few of her ex-boyfriend’s clothes in the bathtub where water from faucets and shower heads is readily available (though the Durham police failed to consider using it to extinguish the fire). This charge is totally bogus, as there is no mention in the police or fire records of any fire damage to the building… there is fire damage to clothing, however, and smoke damage to the building (which was the proximate result of the police electing to wait 23 minutes for the fire department to come and put out the fire).
(2) Misdemeanor child abuse – three counts – is dependent upon Crystal Mangum setting fire to the building or committing first degree arson. She did not do that, therefore this charge is as bogus as the first degree arson charge.
(3) Misdemeanor injury to personal property charge, I believe, is inflated on a grand scale. I am sure that the burned clothes of the ex-boyfriend, counting depreciation, were not worth more than $200. To increase the amount of property damaged, the police record attributed to Crystal damage to the ex-boyfriend’s car’s windshield and tires. The police record and police incident report do not specify what damage was done, whether or not instruments were used to inflict damage, or when the vandalism took place. I doubt that vandalism was done to the car by Ms. Mangum because the biased media did not mention it… and believe me they would’ve reported as much damage as possible to make Ms. Mangum’s actions look bad.
(4) Misdemeanor resist, delay, obstruct public officer charge was made because Crystal Mangum allegedly gave a false a false name which, by their reasoning, interfered with the police investigation. I submit that the Durham police knew her identity before they asked her what her name was. That is why they were quick to arrest her. If police at the site had not known her true identity, then the ex-boyfriend would probably have been the one arrested, the police would have turned on the water in the bathtub and extinguished the fire, and the Durham Fire department, with its multiple units, would not have been beckoned out in the middle of the night to extinguish a few clothes burning in a tub.
None of the charges against Ms. Mangum in the grand jury amount to a hill of beans, yet she is under a $100,000 bail (down from the initial $1 million bail). As of May 12, 2010, she remains in jail (although some in the media which were too embarrassed to admit that she was still in jail, such as Newsweek magazine, stated that she was under house arrest). The fact is, however, that even if Ms. Mangum were to make the bail, she would be released on the condition that she is confined to house arrest!
How about a few comparisons with Ms. Mangum’s $1 million bail and aforementioned charges versus charges and bail set for other North Carolina defendants:
Christopher Ray McBride Bail initially: $125,000. Criminal act: physical child abuse beating his 1 year-old daughter so severely that she was left permanently blind.
Labrian A. Lynch Bail: $60,000. Criminal act: assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. He stabbed his girlfriend, who attempted to escape by running into the street where she was struck by a car. Mr. Lynch also has priors including attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon in 1997.
Bryant Harrison Dennis Bail $10,000. Criminal acts: Statutory sex offenses, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia.
Michele Stein Bail: $200,000. Criminal acts: felony child abuse, severe bodily injury. The three year old victim sustained a skull fracture and bruises to the frontal part of the brain. The boy has been comatose ever since the trauma, more than three weeks ago.
To recap, the scam run by the prosecutors goes like this when a person who they have targeted commits a minor offense:
(1) Overcharge defendant with serious charges and excessive charges upon arrest;
(2) the more severe and numerous the charges, the higher the bail will be set;
(3) with an excessively high bail, the defendant will be unable to make bond and be forced to remain in jail (the beginning of his/her jail sentence);
(4) prosecutors drag out the process, insuring that the defendant will have a longer stay in jail (since the district attorney sets the docket, this can be easily achieved);
(5) get a grand jury indictment, which is private, instead of having a public hearing in court (this prevents the media from realizing that the prosecutor has no case worth merit);
(6) omit the most extreme and outrageous charges when obtaining indictments from the grand jury;
(7) continue to stall and avoid bringing the case to trial by moving the case along at a snail’s pace which will help make the jail sentence last longer;
(8) when satisfied that enough time has been served by the defendant, offer the defendant’s attorney a plea deal for his client, wherein he/she pleads guilty to a lesser offense and is sentenced to time served. More likely than not, the demoralized defendant will accept the plea deal just in order to taste freedom once again and get out of jail.
This is the exact cart-before-the-horse strategy that the prosecution under Assistant D.A. Garcia-Lamarca is following in the Crystal Mangum case. The case is a travesty of justice, using Carpetbagger inspired vendetta justice which has kept Ms. Mangum in jail since February 18, 2010 (nearing the three month mark and counting). And make no doubt about it, Ms. Mangum’s incarceration has nothing to do with justice or the incidents that occurred the night of February 17, 2010… it is purely payback for accusations she made in the Duke Lacrosse case. To repeat, right now she is serving a sentence, not for any of the cockamamie trifle listed in the grand jury indictment in reference to the night of February 17th. She is currently serving an indeterminate sentence for having the gall to accuse Duke lacrosse players from families of wealth, power, and privilege of a sexual assault. And that sentence could last a long time because leaders of the black community remain silent as dormice while the media columnists, op/ed writers, and newspaper editors look the other way.
Keep in mind, that the prosecutorial scam of having a defendant serve a sentence prior to trial was brought to my attention by a blog commenter who is an ardent critic of mine and a person who is very critical of the cause for which I advocate, which is justice for Mike Nifong. Again, Whatchoo, thank you for your contribution… and I would like to thank kenhyderal for your insightful and compassionate statements.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
Sidney,
It still seems to me that Durham is locking her up because she's too much of a loose cannon. Remember, the city is being sued for every penny in its piggy bank, and if CGM gets high, God only knows what she might say to hurt the city's case. This way they control her access to the press and to the players' lawyers.
To guiowen:
Locking Ms. Mangum up because she is a loose cannon and might jeopardize the city's defense against the lawsuits filed by the avaricious Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their greedy attorneys is not mentioned in the grand jury indictment... and that is hardly a reason to lock her up.
I am more of a loose cannon than Ms. Mangum. She was merely trying to survive when she got into a misunderstanding with her ex-boyfriend. The Durham Police are responsible for taking things to the next level. I seriously doubt that she is desirous or capable of damaging Durham's defense against the lawsuits.
Sidney,
Obviously they're not going to mention that as a reason for locking her up. Maybe she can hurt them, maybe not, but they're just taking no chances.
"She was merely trying to survive when she got into a misunderstanding with her ex-boyfriend."
Standard Naval survival training includes slashing the tires on an attacker's automobile and torching his clothes in a "controlled burn."
Gosh, Sid, could you possibly be any more biased? (That's rhetorical. The answer is no.)
By the way, where's your explanation of how CGM spit the semen from the LAX "rapist" on the floor and no LAX DNA appears in her mouth, and no mixed LAX/CGM DNA appears on the floor, huh?
Oh, that's right. It's "forthcoming."
Sidney,
Maybe you're more of a loose cannon than CGM, but the city's defense doesn't depend on what you've done, and can't be damaged by anything you may do.
Apart from this, I may be wro9ng, but you don't seem the type of person to get high on drugs.
Hate can really distort a person's reasoning. "she was merely trying to survive" Survive, Michael as in look after her Family and pay her bills. What Standard Naval Survival Training has to do with this, completely escapes me. As far as the other "red-herring" you raise, was this actually tested for by investigators for the prosecution and was any negative exculpatory finding provided to the defense?
Kenhyderal,
Are you suggesting that burning her boy friend's clothes was going to help her pay her bills? Was she maybe practicing for a circus magician's act?
Facetiousness doesn't add anything to this debate.
Sidney,
I commend you for finally addressing serious flaws in the NC system of justice.
you didn't touch the topic of the arson charge against Ms. Mangum. Why not? I refer you to my blog post of May 12, 2010.
You have trivialized Ms. Mangum’s arrest. Your recent characterization of her decision to burn clothes in the bathtub as "logical" is beyond the pale. The post did not merit a serious response.
You repeatedly make the baseless allegation that the Carpetbagger Jihad® is responsible for Ms. Mangum’s predicament. You provide no credible evidence for this allegation. Instead, you cite Rae Evans’ comment on 60 Minutes to the effect that “Mr. Nifong will pay every day…” as support for your accusation.
You recognize that the Carpetbagger Jihad® has no authority to arrest or charge Ms. Mangum; that authority rests with the DPD and the DA. You concede that it makes absolutely no sense for Durham, the DPD, the DA’s office and now the NC NAACP to “do the bidding” of the Carpetbagger Jihad®, but you dismiss all other alternatives without consideration. You tie yourself in mental knots as you bleat that everyone acts illogically. As you know, this problem of illogical behavior is due entirely to your premise.
It seems that you blame the Carpetbagger Jihad® simply because…well, simply because you want to blame it.
After several comments in which I attempted at your request to provide another explanation for the overcharging/excessive bail and to ask you to substantiate your allegation that the Carpetbagger Jihad® is responsible, I gave up and chose not to dignify your allegation.
You didn’t “touch the topic” of my comments. “Why not? I refer you to my” comments of February 23, February 24, February 25, February 27, February 28, March 10, March 20 and April 27.
Now, I am taking a giant leap of faith in believing Whatchoo without first confirming what he states, but it sounds like it is on the money. If his statements about those two issues are true, then he is absolutely correct when he stated that I was ignorant about it.
These issues, along with other significant shortcomings in the NC justice system, have been widely discussed over the past 4 years in the context of the frame. You betray your lack of understanding of the facts once again.
You may recall that there had been no hearings of any substance (except related to discovery issues) when Mr. Nifong asked to be recused—almost 9 months after the initial indictments. Mr. Nifong took advantages of the same flaws in the system you now criticize.
I suggest that you read the comments. You would have been aware of these issues much earlier had you done so. I raised previously the issues of the lack of a right in NC to a speedy trial, the control that the DA has over the docket and the timing of the proceedings, flaws in the grand jury system, no right to a probable cause hearing for indicted defendants and weak enforcement of open discovery requirements. You ignored these comments.
You didn’t “touch the topic” of my comments. “Why not? I refer you to my” comments, for example, of November 5 and February 22.
Many of Mr. Nifong’s critics noted that the “case management” system in NC enables prosecutors to abuse the rights of defendants (whether or not defendants are incarcerated prior to trial; incarceration increases the hardship) and force unjust plea bargains, with poor minority defendants the most frequent victims of this abuse.
I ask once again that you provide credible support for your theory that the Carpetbagger Jihad® is responsible for Ms. Mangum’s predicament. Rae Evans’ comment is not sufficient. If you fail to do so, I ask that you retract that repeated allegation.
I have noted that your tendency to make ridiculous unsubstantiated charges subjects you to justified mockery. Yet you continue.
kenhyderal,
Hate can really distort a person's reasoning.
I fully agree. The commenter apparently most consumed with hate on this blog and thus least able to reason properly is our host, Dr. Sidney B. Harr.
As you have seen, this blog is not a forum for a serious discussion.
Our host insures that most comments can only address his dishonesty or ridicule his double standard. Sidney makes no serious attempt at accuracy, and commenters keep busy merely trying to correct his numerous misstatements.
Ms. Mangum’s arrest provides an excellent case in point. Whether Ms. Mangum was grossly overcharged in this episode is a legitimate question. The broader point of whether the DPD or police in general overcharge defendants—particularly poor minority defendants—and thus force lengthy pretrial incarceration and unjust plea bargains merits real discussion.
Our host, however, has trivialized this issue, preferring to make the baseless allegation that the Carpetbagger Jihad® is responsible for Ms. Mangum’s treatment.
He has made this allegation in numerous separate posts and, despite repeated requests from his readers, has refused to provide any support whatsoever for this ridiculous allegation. He admits he has none. He notes a glaring flaw in his speculation, recognizing that it would be “idiotic” for the City of Durham to “do the bidding” of the Carpetbagger Jihad®, noting correctly that the interests of the City and the former defendants conflict significantly. Despite these seemingly insurmountable problems with his theory, he then repeats without support his claim that the City acts in its own worst interest in support of the Carpetbagger Jihad®.
As a result, he avoids any serious discussion of more significant issues.
Walt and I have addressed problems with the justice system in several comments on recent threads. The players have alleged in their lawsuits that the DPD engaged in serious misconduct and have questioned whether the DPD’s activities in this case are symptomatic of more general wrongdoing. As you know, the primary victims of police misconduct are the poor minority defendants Sidney claims he wants to protect. As a result, many observers believe that full disclosure of the DPD’s activities and court oversight of the DPD is the real focus of the former defendants’ lawsuit—and precisely what the City of Durham seeks to avoid. Sidney refuses to address this issue, preferring simply to label the plaintiffs as greedy.
Most readers recognize that this is not the only case of prosecutorial/police misconduct or the most egregious. However, thanks in large part to Mr. Nifong's “million dollars of free publicity” and the ability of the defendants to fight back, the misconduct in this case is probably the most highly publicized prior to trial. Few prosecutors call undue attention to themselves while they are attempting to frame innocent defendants. Similarly, most prosecutors would drop charges and try to move on once their frame had been exposed. Not Mr. Nifong.
Until this post, Sidney has shown no interest in improvements to the system that could offer greater protection to defendants like Ms. Mangum, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Daniels, whose causes he claims to champion.
Why fight for changes in an imperfect system that can actually benefit the poor when he can fight imaginary evils like the Carpetbagger Jihad®?
Kindergarten, our founding fathers in the USA included something in the U.S. constitution called the "right to a speedy trial". Sadly, the courts have interpreted this clause as being within a reasonable time. However, it PREVENTS indefinite incarcerations before a trial. Defense lawyers use this constitutional right all the time to have the case dropped. Children go back to the drawing board on your theories. You bore the average folk.
"with friends like these who needs enemies"
Too bad those that gain public notoriety, do not choose their self-designated advocates.
A psychological profile of Harr, I understand has been prepared.
The leading DSM IV Axis is "post traumatic stress syndrome."
It goes on from there. Head injury, Asperer's syndrome and/or other conditions are also speculated.
Let us encourage him for research purposes to donate his brain. At least that might actually help someone.
Pre-K, aka Anon @ 7:25pm - Kindergarten, our founding fathers in the USA included something in the U.S. constitution called the "right to a speedy trial".
Pre-K, that is indeed in the US Constitution. It's even codified in 18 U.S.C. §3161(c)(1) - 70 days from indictment.
However, there is no time limit in NC. NC used to have a speedy trial statute (120 days), but repealed it some 21 years ago.
Pre-K - However, it PREVENTS indefinite incarcerations before a trial. Defense lawyers use this constitutional right all the time to have the case dropped.
Except in NC. To wit:
State v. McBride, 187 N.C. App. 496, 653 S.E.2d 218 (4 December 2007).
The court ruled that a delay of three years and seven months from arrest to trial did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.
State v. Spivey, 357 N.C. 114 (2003)
A first-degree murder defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated by a delay of four and one-half years after his arrest.
----------------------------------
Let us know when you're ready for kindergarten, Pre-K.
So, J. Swift What is you theorey for the reason Crystal Mangum is receiving such unjust treatment. Surely this is not the norm even in North Carolina. Nifong Supporter's theorey is that it's a vendetta, Guiowen's theorey is that it's to keep her from affecting The City of Durham's lawsuit.
Whine all you want to Sydney! Karma is a Bitch. The only toime i will feel sorry for Crusty Mangum, is when she has served 30 years - the probable sentence that the Durham Deadhead Ex DA Mike Nifong (remember him Sidney?) would have demanded had his malicious frame got to trial.
As for the rest of the sock puppets that post here in defence of CGM,(Ken 'from Abu Dabi' Hyderal - whose whinging comments were noticeably absent during the Lacrosse Frame) don't waste your time. What you are doing is usually called flogging a dead horse.
To Michael:
Michael said...
"Standard Naval survival training includes slashing the tires on an attacker's automobile and torching his clothes in a 'controlled burn.'"
Maybe you know something I don't. No where in any of the reports did I see anything about tires being slashed. Can you give me a reference? And also, can you tell me what happened to the windshield. The reports were vague about that as well.
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/6402236/article-Duke-lacrosse-figure-charged?instance=homethirdleft
This news article reported the vehicle damage (the tires and the window). There was also a TV report that linked the damage to the vehicle to the altercation. I don't have a link for that.
Brod Dickhead said...
As for the rest of the sock puppets that post here in defence of CGM,(Ken 'from Abu Dabi' Hyderal - whose whinging comments were noticeably absent during the Lacrosse Frame ...................................... I only recently discovered this forum. Actually I'm a Canadian that happens to be working in Dubai. I don't whine but I do debate issues and I never resort to ad-hominem attacks or name calling. That's done quite often by some who are unable to defend their opinions with fact and logic.
kenhyderal,
I have previously answered this question at Sidney’s request numerous times. I will repeat my answer.
Sidney has ignored each of those comments. As you may not have learned, Sidney tends to pretend that unfavorable comments do not exist. He either ignores them or makes straw man arguments. He repeats his mantra unchanged—without correcting the factual errors that have been identified.
I agree with you and Sidney that Ms. Mangum’s charges and bail appear to be excessive. I caveat, however, that I do not know the facts well enough to draw a firm conclusion. I find Sidney to be an unreliable source. He often misrepresents or misstates facts and refuses to acknowledge, let alone correct, his errors. He rarely provides an accurate and unbiased description of an event.
My inclination is that this is the way that NC justice works. There are too many cases to view this as an aberration. However, I agree that the excessive treatment justifies consideration of other theories.
I find Sidney’s theory that Ms. Mangum is the victim of the Carpetbagger Jihad® to be baseless. Sidney has had three months to provide support for this speculation, and he is unable to do so. He pretends that Rae Evans’ comment that “Mr. Nifong will pay every day…” provides support. Sidney ignores Mrs. Evans’ sympathetic statements toward Ms. Mangum.
I have explained why I believe the Carpetbagger Jihad® theory is hopelessly flawed. Sidney refuses to address its weaknesses. He apparently believes that repetition causes the problems to go away.
I agree with guiowen that Ms. Mangum’s treatment may be an attempt by the City or the DPD to intimidate Ms. Mangum and avoid unhelpful testimony in the civil suits—if discovery ever is permitted to begin.
The record provides significant support to the theory that the original case was a deliberate frame. Despite a lack of credible evidence, the DPD failed to conduct a bona fide investigation. In one of the most highly publicized cases in City history, the police failed to interview relevant witnesses, examine evidence in their possession or known to exist, reconcile conflicting evidence or follow departmental procedures. They made false statements in affidavits and allegedly committed perjury and filed false reports.
Supervisors failed to monitor the activities of their subordinates even after media reports raised serious doubts about those activities.
Unlike the Carpetbagger Jihad® theory, which presumes that the former defendants are directing the DPD and the DA to act contrary to their own interests, this theory assumes the DPD and the DA do what they believe is best for themselves. As noted above, numerous questions have been raised about the DPD’s faux investigation. Tracey Cline, the current DA, was Mr. Nifong’s “second chair” on the lacrosse frame. It is beyond belief that she was unaware of what was going on.
Many believe that the DA and DPD made arrests in an attempt to intimidate witnesses in the original case. Mr. Elmostafa was arrested on a 2½ year old misdemeanor warrant after he provided a statement favorable to the defense. The DPD arrested Ms. Mangum’s boyfriend, Matt Murchison, and a number of her other friends and associates during that case.
It is not clear that Ms. Mangum would damage the City's defense. I don’t even know if the plaintiffs would depose her. Nevertheless, I believe that this theory merits consideration.
Sidney has dismissed it out of hand, simply by claiming that the City has nothing to hide. He refuses to support his assertion.
Finally, I note that Sidney dismissed this theory in a comment on this thread because “it is not mentioned in the grand jury indictment.” I find Sidney’s comment to be absolutely moronic. He acts as though he expects the alleged perpetrators to inform a court that they are engaging in witness intimidation and obstruction of justice.
kenhyderal,
I want to explain what you term Michael's "red herring." His comment asking for Sidney's "explanation of how CGM spit the semen from the LAX 'rapist' on the floor and no LAX DNA appears in her mouth, and no mixed LAX/CGM DNA appears on the floor" is a carryover from a discussion that Sidney initiated, but has been avoiding since last November.
In her April 6 written statement, Ms. Mangum made the following allegation:
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT ADAM EJACULATED IN MY MOUTH AND I SPIT IT OUT ONTO THE FLOOR, PART OF IT FELL ONTO THE FLOOR AFTER HE PULLED HIS PENIS OUT.
The NC SBI found no semen from any samples in the rape kit. DNASI found no DNA that matched any of the players from any samples in the rape kit, including samples from Ms. Mangum's mouth. DNASI found no mixed LAX/CGM DNA on the floor. (DNASI was unable to exclude Evans from a mixture taken from several of the fingernails found in Evans' wastebasket.) The NC SBI and DNASI results were communicated to the defense in April and May.
DNASI found DNA from at least four or five unidentified male sources (i.e., it matched none of the players or any other samples provided to them) in and on Ms. Mangum, including, I believe, samples from her mouth. The discovery of the unmatched male DNA was excluded from the May 12 DNASI report. This was uncovered by the defense team when they analyzed the raw data provided in October by Mr. Nifong under court order. Dr. Brian Meehan from DNASI testified under oath in December that he and Mr. Nifong had agreed to exclude this data from the report in violation of company rules, industry guidelines and state law. Mr. Nifong has provided three different explanations for this decision.
Sidney has claimed that the failure to find DNA in the rape kit that matched the defendants was not exculpatory. He has further claimed that the discovery of unmatched male DNA was also not exculpatory.
He promised on December 3 to explain how the failure to match DNA in an alleged rape in which the alleged attackers ejaculated and did not use condoms is not exculpatory. He promised on January 13 to comment on Ms. Mangum's written statement "at his earliest convenience." He has failed to do so.
Sidney has ignored numerous reminders of his failure to keep his promises. See my comments related to this subject on November 5, November 10, November 12, November 15, December 3, December 7, December 14, December 27, December 28, January 10, January 11, January 12, January 17, January 20, January 31, February 2, February 6, February 12, February 18, March 6 and March 20. Michael and other commenters have also raised this question on several occasions. Sidney has failed to ackowledge these comments except to reply on occasion with a straw man argument.
While you recognize correctly that Michael made a comment on this thread that was off-topic, I hope you can appreciate the frustration of dealing with a host who repeatedly makes false and misleading statements, ignores criticism, applies a transparent double standard in his analysis, and fails to substantiate his allegations, to acknowledge and correct his errors and to keep his promises. I urge that you read Sidney's posts on subjects other than Ms. Mangum's arrest. You may begin to understand why so many commenters treat our host as an object of scorn, derision and mockery.
kenhyderal said...
But, in the case of Crystal's present situation of extreme over-charges and a unreasonably long pre-trial custody, although opinions may differ as to the reason for this, several here including yourself, Nifong Supporter, Guiowen, Anonymous and myself agree that she is, now, being treated unfairly. For the sake of justice what, other then posting the excessive $100,000 bail can be done to correct this.
Let me explain my own feelings, as far as this blog is concerned. I started looking at the Duke Lacrosse case back in 2006, and saw a serious miscarriage of justice there. I applauded the dismissal of the charges against the players, and the eventual disbarment of the head perpetrator, Mike Nifong. I personally have never met any of the three indicted players and would probably have little to say to them in a social setting, but I simply could not stand the serious misbehavior engaged in by Nifong and his supporters.
I was greatly surprised when the J4N blog started: who could be interested in rehabilitating this scoundrel?
I started reading the blog and I must say I was quite amused at Sidney's disingenuousness: he ignores all contrary arguments, and insists against all evidence that somehow the "carpetbagger jihad" has taken over all of North Carolina justice. At one point I decided to mock Sidney and his sock puppets by using my own sock puppets. I repent me of that, however, because I really would like to participate in a serious blog. In any case, I have to say I've grown fond of Sidney, even if I disagree with everything he says.
As to the treatment CGM is receiving, I agree it's excessively harsh. However, the only thing I can recommend is that, somehow, we try to bring the federal government into the equation. The sooner this whole nest of scoundrels is taken out, the better off we will all be.
I doubt, however, that the Feds will do much; they're too busy with too many other things.
@ Ken "from Dubai" Hyderal
All you are showing yourself to be is an astonishingly ignorant shill for Sidney B Harr!
As a "Canadian..... who only recently discovered this forum" it behoves you to do a little serious research on the role of Crusty 'the hooker' Mangum; Mikey "the Disbarred and Disgraced and Bankrupt" Nifong - formerly known as the Durham DA. You should at least familiarise yourself with the conduct of The city fathers of Durham; The Durham and Duke University Police Departments; The Duke University AAAS Department, and the Duke University Administrationin this case.
Their combined role in the (nearly successful) attempt to frame and then railroad three demonstrably and provably innocent white Duke Lacrosse player for rape is a travesty of which you have made no mention whatsoever.
You should read inter alia the following:
Durham in Wonderland (durhamwonderland.blogspot.com)
Liestoppers
Liestoppers.blogspot.com
Another worthwhile read is the book "Until Proven Innocent" by KC (Robert) Johnston.
When (and if) you have done so, then perhaps posters like "guiowen", "Michael" "JSwift"
"Whachoo......" then perhaps you might have earned the right to be taken just a little bit seriously.
Do you have any idea of the past criminal and arrest record of Mangum? Do you think perhaps her high bail is something to do with her past record?
Your protestations regarding the Mangum's treatment notwithstanding, you still have yet to explain why you haven't stumped up the $10 000 deposit so that Mangum can apply to a bail bondsman. Perhaps your expat fortune took a hit with the demise of Dubai World? I am sure between youself and Sidney, you could arrange a Paypal donation to this site!
I for one am certain that your protestions in this case are only based on the fact that CGM is black and your dead silence on the Lacrosse frame is because the defendants were white.
Regarding the slashed tires and busted windshield, it is amusing how much credibility is placed on what is pure early media speculation in this case, whereas in the Duke Lacrosse case, the media was condemned for doing much the same.
I have seen nothing regarding this from any credible source. It is simply a part of the propaganda campaign on the part of the carpetbagger jihad to get it's revenge against CGM.
We have a valdalized car in the front yard surrounded by crime scene tape and a police charge of destruction of property. I don't need the media, I'll draw the logical conclusion myself. The newspaper cite was simply for Sid's benefit.
Michael said...
We have a valdalized car in the front yard surrounded by crime scene tape and a police charge of destruction of property. I don't need the media, I'll draw the logical conclusion myself. The newspaper cite was simply for Sid's benefit.
May 14, 2010 8:58 AM
Michael, you may not need the media, but that is where this story is coming from. How about a cite from a non-media source that she slashed his tires?
Number89,
As far as I'm concerned, this vandalism issue is a red herring. Either CGM will be tried for this, or she won't. If she is tried for this, that would certainly be a confirmation from a non-media source. If she's not tried for it, the vandalism is meaningless.
guiowen,
I believe the point is that certain folks have presumed guilt based on a unsubstantiated media report. Yet these certain people are quick to be critical of others than have been accused of doing that in relation to some rowdy boys at an under-aged drinking, porch peeing, strippers for hire party a few years or so ago.
To all:
The Durham police report and incident report state that the car's windshield and tires were damaged and vandalized, but they do not give further explanation. The reports do not state that the tire or tires were slashed... or that the windshield was smashed.
Because the media did not mention vandalism to the car, I have serious doubts as to whether or not there was damage to the ex-boyfriend's car. I believe that that charge is purely fictitious and made in order to bring the amount of damage to property above the $200 level, as the clothes burned in the tub (counting depreciation) would probably not come anywhere close to that amount.
Now if anyone can find a media article referencing the details of the damage to the car, would you please let me know.
It's not coming from the media, it's coming from the cops who taped over vehicle as part of the crime scene. While that fact was reported by the media (to which report I had a cite, and I offered it to Sid), my conclusion was drawn from viewing the photograph, not the newspaper story. I I had a cite to the photo, I would have sent that to Sid, instead.
Perhaps the media (or Duke) doctored the photograph?
89,
My problem is that (back in 2006-7) too many people continued talking as if the media reports were true, long after it was obvious that they were false.
Now, as soon as it's clear whether CGM is guilty of this vandalism, we can change our narratives
guiowen,
I believe the question is in doubt, therefore she is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Based on the virtual plethora of various and sundry charges, you would think one of vandalism would be included if she slashed his tires.
I don't remember that one even being on there but I could be mistaken. Other than that report I have not seen other media outlets running with that same story, with a sort of casual mention of the vandalized car, letting the viewer assume (perhaps incorrectly) that it was the result of Crystal's "crime spree". In the Duke case you had many in the media repeating the same accusations, making it somewhat more understandable if people got the impression that those charges were true.
89,
I agree that in the Duke case, the media went overboard. So did your 88 parents, if I remember correctly.
In this case, we at least know something happened. Let's wait and see.
Thank you for waiting guiowen.
Brod Dickhead said.....Your protestations regarding the Mangum's treatment notwithstanding, you still have yet to explain why you haven't stumped up the $10 000 deposit so that Mangum can apply to a bail bondsman................... Incorrect; I have, on several threads, explained why that can't be done with 10% by a person without attachable assets situated in the U.S.A. Examining Crystal Mangums record hardly shows, as you suggest, that she is a hardened criminal. She has earned a University Degree and is working on a Master's Degree. I shill for no one. I do not speak for Crystal or Sidney but only for myself. My opinion as to which of the 3 theories advanced for Crystal's "cruel and inhuman" treatment is not relevant to the present discussion.
Is it too much to ask the Nifongnistas to present a coherent picture of their view of CGM? On the one hand, she's a poor single mother of three struggling to survive, on the other hand she's the accomplished college graduate working on a masters. Basically, whatever distorted portrait suits your argument at the time is trotted out.
In the case of her "misunderstanding" with her "ex-boyfriend" the police report describes her as the aggressor. She was NOT working on her masters thesis or helping the kids with homework. She was running amok, threatening the guy and trashing his stuff. The case file from The Hoax contained hundreds of pages of "sealed" medical reports - we don't know the conditions they described, but we do know she was on strong psych meds. We also know she had a history of violent and aberrant behavior including her "lark" with the taxi.
Critics of Sidney's viewpoint on Nifong have maintained a consistent viewpoint on "his victim," one supported by the known facts of her public behavior. Her degree demonstrates she has the native ability to make something of her life. He behavior suggests that she is incredibly self-destructive, likely due to mental illness of some sort.
Unfortunately, mental illness can't be successfully treated if the patient won't cooperate. CGM self-medicates with alcohol, painkillers and other drugs that simply makes the situation worse.
The Hoax was a sorry affair, but some good COULD have come of it if Nifong, Cy, Vincent Clark and others had helped CGM clean up her act, stay away from the sex industry and "boyfriends," use her degree to get a job, and get (and follow) medical treatment for her mental illness. If any attempts were made in this direction, they failed.
Now can we please get back to the DNA issue? After all, this blog is about the alleged wrongful treatment of Nifong, not CGM.
Actually, the reason we are speaking so much about CGM is that Sidney thinks she is being mistreated because the "carpetbagger jihad", which he claims has full control over NC justice, wants to punish her for her friendship (such as it is) with Nifong.
I personally have a much different take on this, of course.
Michael said...
Is it too much to ask the Nifongnistas to present a coherent picture of their view of CGM? On the one hand, she's a poor single mother of three struggling to survive, on the other hand she's the accomplished college graduate working on a masters................... Michael, these are not mutually exclusive. How do you know what medications Crystal has been prescribed? Medical and Pharmaceutical ethics demand that these matters remain confidential. What do you classify as "strong psych meds" and how, why and where was such confidential information made public.
My understanding is that her medical records were sealed. Some unfortunate and purely accidental leaks somehow occurred. Attempting to trash her reputation over these things or to speculate as to her exact medical conditions seem to me to be designed to cast her in a poor light.
To Michael:
Michael said...
"Is it too much to ask the Nifongnistas to present a coherent picture of their view of CGM? On the one hand, she's a poor single mother of three struggling to survive, on the other hand she's the accomplished college graduate working on a masters."
Let me clarify our view of Ms. Mangum. She is a poor, single mother of three who is struggling to survive and who happens to be a college graduate working on a masters.
To Michael:
Thank you for the reference about the damage to the car. The specific paragraph read as follows:
"Thursday afternoon, an empty black Lincoln car with four flat tires and a shattered windshield was in the driveway, and a leaf blower was in the front yard. The outside of the house showed little fire damage."
Why was this information not included in the police report. Also, there is no mention of the owner of the car, or when the vandalism was thought to have occurred. What is the significance of the leaf blower?
I will try to follow up on this.
JSwift said...
"The commenter apparently most consumed with hate on this blog and thus least able to reason properly is our host, Dr. Sidney B. Harr."
This statement is totally without foundation. The only thing I hate is injustice. That is what I am fighting. As far as individuals go, there is no hatred in my heart... not even for unbekannte. I have frequently stated that I have no animus towards the Duke lacrosse defendants, Rae Evans, or Attorney General Roy Cooper. All I am after is justice for Mike Nifong.
Sidney B Harr said:
The only thing I hate is injustice. That is what I am fighting.
What a crock - Sidney!
If you were against injustice, you would be fighting for the prosecution of Mikey Nifong, Bill Bell, Dick Brodhead, Rob Steel, Mark Gottlieb, Ben Himan, etc etc for felony conspiracy to commit fraud, obstruction, of justice, etc etc under the federal RICO statutes. You would be calling for a term of about 30 years (sound familiar)?
Even the blogger word verification system thinks you suck! The random word used by blogger to verify this post is (I kid you not) barfs! .
An individual who has the capability to graduate from college in this society, and who has in fact graduated, has the capability to do more than "struggle to survive." This is not the description of a social victim or structural denizen of a perpetual underclass. CGM clearly has the capability to engage in socially responsible work. She has chosen not to.
Sidney, your sanitized perception of CGM is intellectually dishonest given the known and documented facts of her behavior.
1. She was dishonorably discharged from the armed forces for engaging in a sexual relationship with a shipmate (while she was married).
2. By her own admission, she sought out work in the sex industry (when she was capable of other employment).
3. DNA evidence and the available record of likely witness testimony in the Hoax case file indicate that she was employed in criminal activity - prostitution -in 2006.
4. Medical information from UNC in 2006 indicates that CGM was on the "watch list" for individuals engaged in drug seeking behavior.
5. Police records and likely witness testimony in the Hoax case file show that she engaged in physical altercations and out-of-control behavior on repeated occasions, often ending with her passing out, or pretending to pass out.
The entire record of behavior is consistent with the Durham Police portrayal of CGM as the aggressor in the altercation with her latest "boyfriend." Do you simply deny that this record exits? If you don't deny it, how can you call this behavior "struggling to survive"? Most rational people would call it antisocial and perhaps mentally disturbed.
Post a Comment