Durham Assistant District Attorney Angela Garcia-Lamarca is plundering the cash-strapped coffers of Durham County, wasting taxpayer money by electronically monitoring Crystal Mangum, the victim in the Duke Lacrosse case. Ms. Garcia-Lamarca is clinging onto the house arrest of Ms. Mangum as it represents her last pitiful bargaining chip in an effort to eek out a plea deal. However, with members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong’s support, it is highly unlikely that Ms. Mangum will plead guilty to trumped up charges when she is, in fact, not guilty. The travesty that befell James Arthur Johnson is not likely to be repeated in this case.
As has been pointed out previously, the trumped up charges against Ms. Mangum (attempted first degree murder, first degree arson, injury to personal property, identity theft, communicating threats, assault and battery, etc.) were the first part of the Carpetbagger Jihad’s agenda to have Ms. Mangum serve a sentence without being convicted of a crime. This bogus case brought by Garcia-Lamarca against Ms. Mangum was intended to be a plea-bargain case from the get-go, and was never intended to see the light of a courtroom with a seated jury.
The angelic bail bondsmen responsible for her release from the Durham County Detention Center, enabled members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong to have access to Ms. Mangum, which allowed the truth to be known… specifically, that she had no prior knowledge or involvement in the clothes set afire in the bathtub. Another truth revealed publicly at her press conference on June 30, 2010, is that Ms. Mangum had no prior knowledge or involvement in the vandalism to a car owned by her ex-boyfriend. In other words, someone other than Ms. Mangum and her children put clothes in the bathtub and set them on fire. The only other possible suspects would be either Ms. Mangum’s ex-boyfriend or member(s) of the Durham Police Department.
It is quite curious that the police reports state an officer allegedly saw Ms. Mangum putting clothes in the bathtub, but that no officer actually witnessed Ms. Mangum setting fire to the clothing items. The case regarding the alleged vandalism to the car is just as murky, if not more so. These are bogus, trumped up charges without credible evidence to support them. And is the assistant district attorney going to force Durham’s finest to commit perjury in order to exact some vendetta on behalf of Carpetbaggers who are presently pursuing a $30 million lawsuit against the cash-strapped Bull city? All rationale and logic cry out for this charade of charges against Ms. Mangum to be dropped immediately and for the city to proceed to work towards restorative justice in an attempt to make Ms. Mangum restored to her position prior to her February 17th arrest.
Since the mid-May release of Ms. Mangum from the detention center, Ms. Mangum has been under house arrest and electronically monitored. This is not a free service, but costs the county twelve dollars ($12.00) per day to maintain. That amounts to $360.00 per month of taxpayer money going down the drain… and for what? Ms. Mangum is not a flight risk and is not a threat to society. In addition, the diversion of attention towards Ms. Mangum deprives those who are really in need of the service.
Now Angela Garcia-Lamarca is willing to stretch out the period of the electronic monitoring of Ms. Mangum over years, if necessary. James Arthur Johnson, for example, was incarcerated 39 months before his trial could no longer be delayed by Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe (at which time he called in a special prosecutor, because, like Garcia-Lamarca, he had no case). What makes this such an outrage is that individuals convicted of DWI are limited by law to 60 days of electronic monitoring. I would like to know who is more deserving of long-term electronic monitoring, Ms. Mangum (a victim of domestic violence), or a person convicted of multiple DWIs?
If there was a reason for monitoring Ms. Mangum, I would not object to the anklet. But Ms. Mangum is definitely no flight risk. She was born in Durham and lived most of her life in Durham, the exception being the years she served in the U.S. Navy. She has no transportation, she does not have the financial wherewithal to leave the area or establish herself elsewhere. And, she is a mother with three children which would make flight impossible.
Now, this is just my opinion, and it is possible that someone might have a reasonable explanation in support of Ms. Mangum being electronically monitored 24/7. If someone is able to provide me with what I consider to be a logical reason for Durham County monitoring Crystal Mangum, then I will award that person with one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) in cold hard cash. This offer is opened to anyone, including Angela Garcia-Lamarca and Judge Claude Allen. However, in the unlikely event I determine that someone is deserving of the monetary award, its payment will be made only after James Arthur Johnson receives his $20,000.00 reward for solving the murder of Brittany Willis.
I believe that electronic monitoring has its place in society, but like most everything, it can be subjected to abuse. Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca’s use of it against Ms. Mangum is an example of that abuse at its worst… using it when it is not warranted and for punitive and malicious purposes. And not only that, but it is a prime example of wasting taxpayer money.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Sidney - What makes this such an outrage is that individuals convicted of DWI are limited by law to 60 days of electronic monitoring. I would like to know who is more deserving of long-term electronic monitoring, Ms. Mangum (a victim of domestic violence), or a person convicted of multiple DWIs?
Sidney, your teaser in the previous thread mentioned "alcohol detecting monitors ". Is abstinence from alcohol one of the stipulations of CGM's pre-trial release?
If not, your conflation of alcohol monitoring with her apparent locational monitoring (either GPS or proximity to a base unit) is a non-starter. Those are two different anklets.
CGM's locational monitoring as a stipulation of her pre-trial release, not unusual for the charges she's under, will last until the case is adjudicated, or the stipulation is waived.
Do you care to cite the NC Statute you refer to?
Sidney - with members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong’s support, it is highly unlikely that Ms. Mangum will plead guilty
There you go again, Sidney, trying to play attorney when you haven't even played one on TV. You and your clowns have already interfered with her defense.
Why isn't Woody Van stepping up again to defend her, as he did when she stole the car and tried to run down an LE officer? Fun fun fun at the strip club.
In re: Woody Vann & CGM:
In June 2002, police records show, she stole the taxi of a man to whom she was giving a lap dance at a Durham strip club. The records say she led a sheriff's deputy on a winding chase at speeds of up to 70 mph, and tried to run him down as he approached the cab on foot.
The woman ... pleaded guilty to misdemeanor counts of larceny, speeding to elude arrest, assault on a government official and driving while impaired. She was sentenced to three consecutive weekends in jail and two years' probation.
Durham attorney Woody Vann, who represented the woman during that incident, said she made a mistake four years ago and completed her punishment. The woman has not returned several messages left by The Associated Press at her home in the past several days.
Where is Woody now? Have you contacted him regarding her defense?
I have, on several occasions, given my explanation of the treatment CGM is receiving.
The Durham city fathers, who are being sued for every cent they have, are afraid that, while under the influence of drugs or otherwise impaired, she might spill the beans. (God knows she's already said some very strange things.) The best way to avoid such problems is to lock her up. It doesn't much matter to them whether she's in the hoosegow or under house arrest.
Spill what beans Guiowen?
The Durham lawsuit is based on events that involved Mangum, Nifong, et al., back in 2006. Everythbing clearly depends on what these people say. Nifong can be counted on to toe the party line. Mangum, while sober, will also do so, but, under the influence of drugs, is liable to tell everyone that this is all a bunch of lies. By locking her up, the city fathers keep her away from controlled substances and the like. They also control who has access to her.
Sidney,
You owe me $1000 for my explanation.
I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
It is clear from the destruction of the house at 610 N. Buchanan, the elimination of Crystal's house arrest and the decision of the public defender to withdraw from Crystal's case that you have the Carpetbaggers on the defensive. You have seized the media's attention. I urge that you capitalize on this opportunity.
Crystal has fought back valiantly against all odds. Not afraid to assume risks, she has thwarted the plans of the Carpetbagger Jihad to impose Rae Evans' sentence. In doing so, Crystal has demonstrated that she is an intelligent, well-spoken, confident young woman—the very personification of credibility—and not the gold-digging, lying, confused, drunk, drug-addicted, mentally unstable prostitute the biased media has invented.
I suggest that you go on the offensive with another press conference.
Have Crystal discuss in detail the events of the infamous beer-guzzling stripper party. She can explain when she arrived and how her driver got lost on a major street in Durham. She can tell exactly how she was attacked—including how one of her attackers ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it out. She can explain why she remained at the house long after she had been attacked and what she and Kim did after leaving and before they drove to the Kroger. She can discuss her experiences at Durham Access and Duke Medical, first alleging rape, then recanting the allegation and finally recanting the recantation. She can describe her injuries and explain why the medical exam and DPD photographs did not document them and the doctors and nurses did not treat them. She can explain why no player DNA evidence was found despite her claims that one or more attackers ejaculated. She can explain why other men's DNA was found in and on her body and in her panties.
She can describe her interaction with Nifong, Wilson, Gottlieb and Himan and other members of the prosecution team. She can confirm that she never discussed the attack with Nifong and that Tracey Cline was not involved. She can discuss her written statement and the DPD reports of their meetings with her. She can resolve the supposed inconsistencies in her accounts. She can discuss her descriptions of the attackers in Himan's notes as short and chubby, with one weighing 270 pounds. She can narrate the video of her selection process as she chose four players as her three attackers and explain how her father was able to announce the results on television the night before the selection process took place. She can explain how she was able to identify the defendants by name in her December interview with Wilson. She can analyze the many photographs and videos taken that night, discuss her cell phone records and explain how she was talking on the telephone either as she was dancing or as she was being attacked. She can explain why she claimed that she was a "cop." She can demonstrate how she was held suspended in mid-air when she was sexually attacked and explain why she had not remembered that minor detail until the special prosecutors interviewed her. She can discuss her experience with the special prosecutors and react to their report which concludes that she was not credible.
She can demonstrate how wrong they were.
Open the floor to questions from all attendees. Crystal does not need your help in answering questions. You and the members of the Committee were not there; Crystal has far more credibility on this subject than you. Do not give the impression that you are managing Crystal and her responses. Her book launch was ineffective because Vince Clark did not allow Crystal to be herself. Permit her to answer by herself all questions dealing with that horrendous night, the biased media coverage and the subsequent investigations. The truth is on Crystal's side; you do not need to censor questions.
"Have Crystal discuss in detail the events of the infamous beer-guzzling stripper party."
She can explain when she arrived and how her driver got lost on a major street in Durham.
She can tell exactly how she was attacked—including how one of her attackers ejaculated in her mouth and she spit it out.
She can explain why she remained at the house long after she had been attacked and what she and Kim did after leaving and before they drove to the Kroger.
She can discuss her experiences at Durham Access and Duke Medical, first alleging rape, then recanting the allegation and finally recanting the recantation.
She can describe her injuries and explain why the medical exam and DPD photographs did not document them and the doctors and nurses did not treat them.
She can explain why no player DNA evidence was found despite her claims that one or more attackers ejaculated. She can explain why other men's DNA was found in and on her body and in her panties.
She can describe her interaction with Nifong, Wilson, Gottlieb and Himan and other members of the prosecution team.
She can confirm that she never discussed the attack with Nifong and that Tracey Cline was not involved.
She can discuss her written statement and the DPD reports of their meetings with her.
She can resolve the supposed inconsistencies in her accounts.
She can discuss her descriptions of the attackers in Himan's notes as short and chubby, with one weighing 270 pounds.
She can narrate the video of her selection process as she chose four players as her three attackers and explain how her father was able to announce the results on television the night before the selection process took place.
She can explain how she was able to identify the defendants by name in her December interview with Wilson.
She can analyze the many photographs and videos taken that night, discuss her cell phone records and explain how she was talking on the telephone either as she was dancing or as she was being attacked.
She can explain why she claimed that she was a "cop."
She can demonstrate how she was held suspended in mid-air when she was sexually attacked and explain why she had not remembered that minor detail until the special prosecutors interviewed her.
She can discuss her experience with the special prosecutors and react to their report which concludes that she was not credible.
Are there any further questions?
Has the victim ever been made aware
of the corroborating evidence
which supports her account?
Anonymous @ 10:17 PM - Has the victim ever been made aware of the corroborating evidence which supports her account?
Which account? She came up with so many, and will continue to do so. Part of not being able to keep her lies straight.
Anonymous @ July 29, 2010 10:17 PM
What corroborating evidence? All the evidence corroborates is that she fabricated the rape story.
To Harr Supporter:
Thank you for your comments, which are undoubtedly rhetorical and facetious.
The issues confronting Ms. Mangum currently are the trumped up charges made by Durham Police and prosecutors. Our objectives are to deal with issues involving the incident that occurred the night of February 17, 2010. That is our focus, not events that occurred in March 2006... events in which Ms. Mangum was the victim.
With regards to the accusations of attempted first degree murder, first degree arson, and injury to personal property, Ms. Mangum, is, without doubt, the falsely accused.
guiowen said...
"Sidney,
You owe me $1000 for my explanation.
I won't hold my breath waiting for it."
First of all, remember that all cash prizes will be awarded only after James Arthur Johnson receives the $20,000 reward due him for solving the crimes against Brittany Willis.
Secondly, my challenge is as follows: "If someone is able to provide me with what I consider to be a logical reason for Durham County monitoring Crystal Mangum, then I will award that person with one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) in cold hard cash."
Electronic monitoring and house arrest will not prevent Ms. Mangum from testifying, and it will not prevent individuals from having access to her. I still strongly believe that she was incarcerated as punishment for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case, and the house arrest is the only bargaining chip the prosecution now possesses in its desperate attempt to secure a plea deal.
Sidney
"Our objectives are to deal with issues involving the incident that occurred the night of February 17, 2010. That is our focus, not events that occurred in March 2006"
I thought your focus was on overturning what happened to Mr. Nifong because of the March 2006 events. When did you become the justice4crystal committee.
Sidney - With regards to the accusations of attempted first degree murder, first degree arson, and injury to personal property, Ms. Mangum, is, without doubt, the falsely accused.
So, Sidney, you're saying that the three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile, and one for resisting a public officer, are good to go.
The three "contibuting to the delinquency of a juvenile are completely bogus charges.
kenhyderal said...
The three "contibuting to the delinquency of a juvenile are completely bogus charges.
It's probably that setting a fire in the house (albeit a 'controlled burn', as Sidney puts it, lol) while her kids were there that resulted in those charges (3 kids). She hopefully hasn't taught the oldest how to fire up the crack pipe just yet.
In any event, it looks like Sidney disagrees with you, ken.
...and the Violins keep playing
Sidney, when are you going to stop playing the perpetual victim and quit whining?
Anonymous said...
"Sidney
'Our objectives are to deal with issues involving the incident that occurred the night of February 17, 2010. That is our focus, not events that occurred in March 2006'
I thought your focus was on overturning what happened to Mr. Nifong because of the March 2006 events. When did you become the justice4crystal committee."
Make no mistake about it that the goal of the "Committee on Justice
for Mike Nifong" is to see that the North Carolina State Bar unilaterally and unconditionally reinstates Mr. Nifong's license to practice law in the state without restrictions. That does not mean, however, that members will sit by quietly and idly, like politicians and elected officials, when injustices of gargantuan proportions are committed. It is an outrage that Durham Police would trump up charges against Ms. Mangum because of her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. An outrage. And we do not intend for the same unjust conclusion that happened in the James Arthur Johnson case to repeat itself.
In the past we have spoken on behalf of Gregory Taylor, Alan Gell, Erick Daniels, and others. It just so happens that Ms. Mangum has a direct connection to the Duke Lacrosse case.
"Mangum has a direct connection to the Duke Lacrosse case."
That is correct. Crystal Mangum, like Tawana Brawley before her, falsely accused innocent men of rape, Had that not happened, there woyld have been no Duke Lacrosse case.
It never happened.
Brod Dickhead said...
"...and the Violins keep playing
Sidney, when are you going to stop playing the perpetual victim and quit whining?"
I don't understand what you are referring to. Like the so-called criminal case against Crystal Mangum, your statement is vague and not specific. Whining? Victim? Could you further elucidate?
In a few minutes I will download a blog regarding the unique house arrest situation under which Ms. Mangum finds herself. Also included at the end is a link to the latest quiz.
Post a Comment