I have long maintained that the Durham prosecutorial strategy related to Crystal Mangum was one in which Prosecutor Angela Garcia-Lamarca would move the Mangum case along through the courts at glacial speed, to assure that Ms. Mangum would spend a significant time behind bars to satisfy the “unofficial” sentence imposed by the Powers-That-Be for committing the “unofficial” crime of accusing three Duke Lacrosse defendants of sexually assaulting her during their infamous March 2006 Spring Break beer-guzzling stripper party. Additional perks to the lengthy malicious retaliatory sentence would be to saddle Ms. Mangum with a significant criminal record, disrupt her life by interfering with her employment and academic pursuits, and to help see to it that social services have grounds to remove her three children from her custody.
This stratagem of having Ms. Mangum carry out her sentence without being convicted of a crime is obviously apparent due to the excessively high $1 million bail set initially for Ms. Mangum by Magistrate B. Wakil. The excessive bail was made palatable by the Durham Police charging her on arrest with bogus charges such as the following which include: (1) felony attempted first degree murder; (2) assault and battery; (3) felony identity theft; and (4) communicating threats. Prosecutors never had the intention of pursuing these charges as they were used only to attain a high bail – which they successfully accomplished. These charges were never even brought before the grand jury when the indictments related to events of February 17, 2010 were sought six and a half weeks later.
Judge Claude Allen could not justify the million dollar bail imposed by the magistrate (especially after the five counts of felony first degree arson were whittled to one), and he reduced her bail to $250,000… still an extremely high bail under the circumstances, and an amount which he believed would be safely out of reach for Ms. Mangum, her family or her supporters. But to insure that she remained in custody in order to serve her indeterminate “sentence,” the crafty judge made a condition that in the event that she was to make bond, that she would then be placed under house arrest. (In my opinion, this was part of the plan worked out in conjunction with the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda, and Judge Allen was merely playing his role. For example, it is my belief that this condition for bail has never been imposed by Judge Allen in the past… and is so illogical a condition that it has rarely, if ever, been imposed by any North Carolina judge, period.)
Although Judge Paul Ridgeway later reduced the bail to $100,000, he left intact Judge Allen’s condition that if the bond was satisfied, that Mangum would be released from jail to house arrest. It seems that Judge Ridgeway was on board with the ruse to circumvent obtaining a conviction before having Ms. Mangum serve a sentence. In other words, he went along with the “cart before the horse” plan to have Ms. Mangum serve her sentence without being convicted of a crime.
The early indication that the charges against Ms. Mangum were baseless is the fact that Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca sought to have the charges entered in the secrecy of a grand jury indictment, rather than in open court, as initially scheduled. On Monday, April 5, 2010, when the hearing was to take place in the open Durham courtroom, Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca feigned illness and did not show up, only later that day to have the charges against Ms. Mangum brought forth in a grand jury indictment behind closed doors. The charges leveled against Ms. Mangum were pitiful, to say the least. Felony first degree arson was based on Ms. Mangum’s actions of burning a few articles of clothing belonging to her ex-boyfriend. By definition, burning clothes, whether in a bathtub, in a fireplace, or in an oven, does not satisfy the definition of “arson” and this charge is undoubtedly baseless. This is the kind of action by prosecutors that makes North Carolina justice a laughing stock of the nation. The three charges of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile are tortuously linked to the merit-less arson charge and therefore should be summarily discarded, too.
The injury to personal property is particularly troublesome in that the police reports and prosecutor notes used in the grand jury indictment refer to nonspecific vandalism to a car’s windshield and tires. Except for one vague reference in the media, this vandalism that is attributed to Ms. Mangum is never mentioned in the news coverage. Its legitimacy is immediately brought into question, and leads an objective observer to believe that it was added by police to bring the amount of personal property damage to a figure greater than $200. Without doubt, the dollar amount of the burnt clothing in the bathtub amounted to less than $200. Had Ms. Mangum truly been responsible for causing damage to her ex-boyfriend’s car, it is a safe bet that she would have been charged with vandalism, as well.
Finally, the charge of obstructing a public official’s investigation into the domestic dispute by giving a false name is totally ludicrous. The police officers knew her identity before they asked for her identity. Had they been unaware of her true identity, Ms. Mangum would never have been arrested, no charges would have been brought against her, and her ex-boyfriend, if anyone, would have been the one taken into custody.
The above explains in detail why Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca has no case against Crystal Mangum, and why all charges against her should be immediately dismissed and why Ms. Mangum should be released from custody.
Now some blog commenters have questioned how do I know what the prosecution strategy is and do I have proof to back up my statements about its future plans in this case. I have not had the privilege of sitting in on the prosecutors’ strategy sessions and have no incriminating e-mails or other documents in my possession. What I do have, however, is common sense, and a history of what has taken place in the North Carolina justice system in the past… especially the James Arthur Johnson case. The following are obvious:
(1) the prosecution has no case against Ms. Mangum. In poker it would be the equivalent of the state having a worthless hand and Ms. Mangum holding a full house, or better. The prosecution knows that it cannot win based on the merits of the case, alone;
(2) instead of dismissing the charges and releasing Ms. Mangum from custody, the state bluffs with its losing hand, and continues to prosecute;
(3) the prosecution hopes that the Ms. Mangum, with her full house, will fold by accepting a plea deal… and they are counting on the public defender’s office to help convince Ms. Mangum to accept the deal… a deal in which she will plead guilty to some kind of charge and be sentenced to time served.
This is the way the scenario basically played out in the James Arthur Johnson case, and this is the direction that this case is assuredly taking. It doesn’t take a crystal ball to see with crystal clarity the prosecution’s plans for working the case against Crystal Mangum. It’s no mystery, in fact, it is all very elementary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Sidney:
"You two continue to discuss DNA in ejaculated semen which has been spit out, if you wish. I'm moving forward to discuss really pertinent issues."
Wow, I mean, WOW! That's it? That's the best you can do Sid after five months? "Let's move on because you've asked a question I can't answer honestly and still maintain my worldview?" REALLY?
And move on to WHAT? Something more fundamental, or something completely tangential? We've been told repeatedly that this blog is about proving the race/class bias of the NC legal system through the example of the unfair treatment of Mike Nifong. Central to your argument is that the Meehan report isn't really that important because his (hidden, unreported) findings were not exculpatory. You twisted yourself in a pretzel five months ago saying that the fact CGM had sex with multiple men who were not the accused had no bearing on the case. Now you are confronted with solid arguments that the (hidden, unreported) DNA findings prove conclusively that CGM lied about key elements of her story (in a case where, by Nifong's own admission, his only evidence was the accuser's testimony), and all you can say is "let's move on"?
Sidney, people whose ancestors may have come from northern Europe, people whose accomplishments in life make them eligible for admission to elite universities, people whose parents may have net assets that exceed your own on a personal balance sheet, and people who weren't born and raised in North Carolina are still entitled, in a NC felony case, to see all the evidence the State has developed, particularly evidence that impeaches THE KEY witness against them. Before you lose all credibility, please admit that to believe otherwise is un-American.
The fault, dear Sidney, lies not in our stars but in ourselves. You are spinning out of all intellectual control to cheerlead for Nifong and CGM for the sole purpose of "proving" that the NC justice system is conditional, based on race and class. All you've demonstrated is that your capability to engage in discussion is conditional, based on whether the weight of evidence supports people that you think are on the RIGHT side of the race/class line or on the WRONG side of the race/class line.
The racist accuses the government of racism. How credible!
Just rename the blog "Justice4Crystal" and we'll all "move on." Until then, your credibility is ZERO. You are simply a racist, and so incredibly un-self-reflective that not only can't you see that, you can't see that you're projecting your psychopathology on the rest of society.
Michael said..... "You are spinning out of all intellectual control to cheerlead for Nifong and CGM for the sole purpose of "proving" that the NC justice system is conditional, based on race and class"........ Judging by the treatment given Crystal Mangum and others, as pointed out by Nifong Supporter, that, from a outside observer's point of view, certainly seems to be the case
I've already given my opinion of why CGM is kept isolated. They just don't want her contradicting the Nifong party line.
We do not know the "facts" underlying the CGM felony charges, only the allegations of the police. CGM is innocent until she pleads guilty or is convicted.
By the same token, any attribution of a particular overarching motive, sinister or otherwise, to police prosecutors, city officials or anyone else regarding the nature or severity of the charges leveled against CGM is the purest of speculation. For every grand conspiracy theory Sidney can spin, one can come up with a logical theory that supports the propriety of police/prosecutor conduct in this matter. Since there is so little in the public record to support ANY theory, a back-and-forth on this subject is a silly exercise.
Such an exercise also has NOTHING to do with whether Mike Nifong lost his law license because he engaged in unethical behavior (as opposed to because the NC justice system hates individuals of northern European ancestry who valiantly support crime victims of African ancestry). THAT'S supposed to be the topic of this blog.
Sid -- Seeking to have charges entered in the secrecy of a grand jury indictment,prosecution knowing that it cannot win based on the merits of the case, bluffing with its losing hand, and continuing to prosecute, hoping that the defendant(s) will fold and accept a plea deal?
All of this sounds vaguely familiar. I think there's a history of this type of behavior in the Durham DA's office.
Lance the Intern said...
"Sid -- Seeking to have charges entered in the secrecy of a grand jury indictment,prosecution knowing that it cannot win based on the merits of the case, bluffing with its losing hand, and continuing to prosecute, hoping that the defendant(s) will fold and accept a plea deal?
All of this sounds vaguely familiar. I think there's a history of this type of behavior in the Durham DA's office."
I am assuming that you are referring to the Duke Lacrosse case, but I do not believe an analogy exists. In the case against Crystal Mangum, the D.A.'s office was intent on having Ms. Mangum serve a sentence for actions unrelated to her arrest. The arrest and overcharges were merely a means to obtain the ridiculously high bail of $1 million. Even though reduced to $100,000, it was judged sufficient to keep Ms. Mangum behind bars. Judge Allen wanted to assure that Ms. Mangum remain in custody in the unlikely event bond was posted, so he made the condition that if posted she would be under house arrest. The plea deal was to be offered after Ms. Mangum spent what the Powers-That-Be considered to be a significant time behind bars. (Her case more closely resembles that of James Arthur Johnson who was held for 39 months without a trial while his prosecutors tried unsuccessfully to get him to accept a plea deal. They were forced to get a special prosecutor to finally come in and get a plea deal for a charge of misprision of felony. He spent 39 months in jail because he did not tell authorities about his knowledge of a crime fast enough... he waited three days.)
Ms. Mangum's case is also similar to the Las Vegas arrest and subsequent treatment of O. J. Simpson. His harsh punishment had nothing to do with the charges for which he was arrested in Las Vegas (which I believe was a sting operation), but rather with the murders he was charged with committing earlier.
In the Duke Lacrosse case, Mike Nifong was prosecuting three lacrosse players who attended the Spring Break beer-guzzling stripper party and were identified by Ms. Mangum with 100% certainty (in two cases) with being the perpetrators, and 80% certainty in the third... to whom he was linked by DNA evidence. Mr. Nifong did not enter into the prosecution of the boys with an agenda, as happened in the Crystal Mangum case. The lacrosse team at Duke had a horrendous reputation for partying and irresponsible alcoholic-related behavior prior to the March 2006 incident. Nearly one third of the 47 member lacrosse team had run-ins with the law, including underaged drinking, disorderly conduct, urinating in public, etc. The team's coach had been warned by the school president to rein in his players, which he evidently was unable to do. In calling the escort service in obtaining the strippers, the lacrosse player used a false name, and stated the event requiring the strippers was for a small bachelor party of four or five. He also requested white strippers, but the escort service sent two African American strippers instead. The performance was stopped after only a couple of minutes because the party-goers' actions and statements were degrading, demeaning, and disrespectful. Then afterwards, racial epithets were shouted at the dancers.
There was reason to believe a crime was committed under the circumstances, and Mr. Nifong was prosecuting in good faith to see that justice was done. It was his objective to win a just conviction, and not merely to get a plea deal. The fact that the defendants all made bail without spending a day in jail, does nothing to support the plea deal scenario. It only works when the defendant is in custody... or is threatened with serious jail time. It is not applicable to the Duke Lacrosse defendants who were immediately released from custody and had a wealth of attorneys and the media fighting on their behalf.
guiowen said...
"I've already given my opinion of why CGM is kept isolated. They just don't want her contradicting the Nifong party line."
The reason CGM is being held in custody is to punish her for having the gall to accuse the three Duke Lacrosse players of sexually assaulting her. It's that simple.
As far as the Nifong party line is concerned, I don't know exactly what you are referring to, but I believe that there is not much contradiction present. Mr. Nifong used statements made by Ms. Mangum for his prosecution, so I do not anticipate there would be much difference between their positions.
If I am misinterpreting what you're trying to say, let me know.
"In the Duke Lacrosse case, Mike Nifong was prosecuting three lacrosse players who attended the Spring Break beer-guzzling stripper party and were identified by Ms. Mangum with 100% certainty (in two cases) with being the perpetrators, and 80% certainty in the third... to whom he was linked by DNA evidence."
Setting aside the value-laden adjectives (beer-guzzling stripper party) that Sidney uses to bolster arguments which have no factual underpinning, the rest of this statement is factually FALSE. The two "identified by Ms. Mangum with 100% certainty" both had airtight alibis from the moment the "performance" ended. They simply were not present at the alleged "crime scene." Nifong refused to view alibi evidence offered by the defense. The third individual was not "linked by DNA evidence at all." A fingernail that had been in the possession of CGM (and had not at any time been attached to her person), had been thrown in the trash, and the individual allegedly "linked" lived in the house where the trash can was located. Although one would expect to find this person's DNA in his own trash can, even the DNA findings on the fingernail were not a direct link. Rather, the individual could simply not be excluded as a contributor of the DNA found on the fingernail (as could a host of other men).
Now, when you look for DNA from a sexual assault, is the first place you look a fake fingernail thrown in a trash can and contaminated with the DNA on everything else in that trash can? OR, do you look in the accuser's sexual orifices? If you answer "sexual orifices," then you win the PRIZE because DNA from multiple men were found in all three. But did Mike Nifong try to find the contributors of THAT DNA? I think we all know the answer to that question.
The rest of Sid's last post is just a regurgitation of early news stories planted by the police or the prosecution. Anyone with a computer, Google, and five minutes of spare time can see how these "facts" were subsequently discredited by subsequent, truthful information.
Sidney,
The early indication that the charges against Ms. Mangum were baseless is the fact that Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca sought to have the charges entered in the secrecy of a grand jury indictment, rather than in open court.
You make the comment that Ms. Garcia-Lamarca’s decision to obtain indictments “in the secrecy of a grand jury” is an indication that the charges against Ms. Magnum are “baseless.” You then describe Mr. Nifong’s case as through it was strong, but you don’t explain why he decided to obtain indictments “in the secrecy of a grand jury.” I don’t understand how the use of a grand jury shows that one case is “baseless” and another strong. Please explain how you reach contradictory conclusions in these two cases.
You confuse (intentionally, I believe) the use of the grand jury to obtain indictments and a strategy of overcharging a defendant to encourage a plea bargain. The two are not necessarily linked. For example, Ms. Mangum agreed to a plea bargain during her last criminal incident. She pled guilty to several misdemeanors after having been charged with several felonies. As you know, she was arrested when she allegedly attempted to run over a police officer with a stolen taxicab she was driving while severely intoxicated. She crashed it into a police car when the officer jumped out of the way. A grand jury did not return indictments.
If Mr. Nifong had a strong case, why did he not seek arrest warrants immediately after Ms. Mangum selected the defendants on April 4? All other rape suspects in Durham County were arrested on the basis of a warrant. The use of a grand jury for the lacrosse case was an aberration that has never been explained.
Nifong’s decision to wait from April 4, when Ms. Mangum selected the defendants, until their arrests on April 18 and May 15 exposed the community to the risk of what you want us to believe were potentially violent rapists for another 2 to 6 weeks. This delay was not necessary. If he genuinely believed that the defendants had committed a horrific crime, Mr. Nifong’s decision to delay arrests and subject the community to this risk was inexcusable. He should have had them arrested on April 4.
Because the lacrosse players were arrested after indictments were obtained, they were not entitled to a probable cause hearing. In the nine months between the initial indictments and Nifong’s recusal, the hearings were limited to the status of discovery. No substantive motions were heard. Nifong was never required to demonstrate probable cause. He was never required to provide a bill of particulars describing the specifics of the crimes for which the defendants had been charged. You apparently want us to believe that this consideration never factored into Mr. Nifong’s decision. On what basis do you reach that conclusion? Please provide your source.
Because Ms. Mangum was arrested prior to her indictment, she may still be entitled to a probable cause hearing at which the prosecutor will be required to show evidence in open court. You should seek confirmation from a NC lawyer. If so, she retains rights not granted to the lacrosse defendants.
Sidney,
"It only works when the defendant ... is threatened with serious jail time."
Earth to Sidney! Earth to Sidney!
If convicted, the lacrosse defendants faced up to 30 years in prison. That is "serious jail time." There are plenty of examples of defendants out on bail agreeing to plead guilty to lesser charges because they do not want to risk the downside of a conviction.
I know what you meant: pretrial incarceration increases the pressure to agree to a plea. I suggest that you correct your comment and explain to your readers that you didn't intend exactly what you wrote. Otherwise, that comment makes you look like a complete idiot.
There was reason to believe a crime was committed under the circumstances, and Mr. Nifong was prosecuting in good faith to see that justice was done.
Mr. Nifong conceded in June 2007 that there was "no credible evidence" to support charges. This concession is not consistent with your assertion. Do you believe that Mr. Nifong was lying when he made this concession or do you believe that he is completely incompetent and unable to assess the evidence? Please provide your source for your conclusion that Mr. Nifong's statement cannot be believed.
It was his objective to win a just conviction, and not merely to get a plea deal.
On what basis do you reach this conclusion? How did Mr. Nifong seek a "just" conviction with "no credible evidence" to support charges? He knew that one or more of Ms. Mangum's specific allegations had been proven conclusively to be false and that she was either lying or was delusional. He knew that Sgt. Gottlieb's report was prepared without benefit of contemporaneous notes and contradicted other DPD reports and other evidence. Was he intending to suborn perjury in order to obtain a "just" conviction? Please provide your source.
Mr. Nifong's office (and those of his predecessor and successor) regularly reached plea bargains in rape and sexual assault cases, including cases where the suspect was out on bail. I am not aware that Mr. Nifong was unwilling to discuss a plea. Because a plea bargain may have greatly reduced, if not eliminated, the civil liability now potentially faced by Mr. Nifong and the City of Durham, many observers believe that Mr. Nifong would have accepted a plea. Please provide your source.
The point is that CGM is not entirely sane, and, while under the influence, she might deviate from the script.
guiowen said...
"The point is that CGM is not entirely sane, and, while under the influence, she might deviate from the script."
On what basis do you make the statement that Ms. Mangum is "not entirely sane"? Furthermore, there is no "so-called script" for her to deviate from.
She was jailed solely as payback for her accusations against the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Plain and simple... it's not complicated.
"She was jailed solely as payback for her accusations against the Duke Lacrosse defendants."
This would require the arresting officers to (1) know who she was and (2) have "standing orders" to arrest her on the most extreme possible charges if she ever stepped out of line.
Sidney, you've said before that the officers were not fooled by her giving a false ID. How do you know that? Or are you just assuming she's so famous and recognizable that everyone on the DPD payroll would recognize her on sight? (Your boy Vince didn't recognize her initially before Cash introduced her. Vince even remarked how she looked different - smaller IIRC - than he expected. And Vince is an "expert," at least in your mind.)
We've asked you repeatedly to provide some evidence (other than pure speculation) as to why the DPD would want to retaliate against CGM. Testimony form a cop? Copy of a secret "let's get Crystal memo"? Crystal as been nothing but trouble for DPD Their NATURAL inclination would be to stay as far away from her as possible, not put her in the spotlight again. You seem to think that everyone will believe that the NATURAL thing for DPD to do would be to retaliate at the first available opportunity and that's the ONLY conceivable explanation for DPD's behavior here. That's just silly.
Some facts, please, Sidney. Enough with page after page of conjecture!
Were all the charges laid, at the time of the arrest, by the Police Officers who attended to the 911 dispatch?
Sid -- You stated "...it is my belief that this condition for bail has never been imposed by Judge Allen in the past".
What is your basis for this belief?
Sid Harr : "Mr. Nifong was prosecuting in good faith to see that justice was done."
Nike Nifong: ""I agree with state Attorney General there is no credible evidence that [the players] ... committed any of the crimes of which they were indicted..."
Sid -- Should we believe Nifong or you?
New Blog: "When it comes to injustice, Duke LAX doesn't even merit mention"
Sid -- Answer the questions posed to you.
Lance, if Sid won't answer the questions about DNA that he said hew would research and answer months ago, what makes you think he will answer your question about the obvious contraction between his "hero's" statement that he agreed with the AG's conclusion and Sid's continuing speculation that the LAX players were guilty of "something"?
Post a Comment