Sunday, December 23, 2012

Celebrating the Man from Nazareth / Mangum defense fund

Click on link at end of blog to view official 2012 j4n Christmas card

Word count: 1,221
In a few days we will be paying homage to the Man from Nazareth and his birth in a manger in Bethlehem… however, amid regaling, exchanging gifts, and feasting on succulent meals with family and dear friends, as is customary in this worldwide tradition, I implore that everyone takes time to think about what is truly important in life. I admit that some expensive and coveted items are nice, they are only objects… mere possessions. If you take a deep look into your soul, I am sure that you will conclude, as do I, that the truly most important things in life are freedom and loved ones. Freedom to roam about to take in the glories of nature that have been bestowed upon us, and the ability to share our hearts with dearly beloved family and friends are at the core of what fills the human kind with contentment and serenity.

It is extremely sad that freedom and family contact have been maliciously taken from Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser, by a biased and sadistic justice system all for the purpose of exacting payback against her for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. This Christmas will mark Crystal Mangum’s 632nd day of incarceration within the Durham County correctional facility on trumped up murder and larceny charges that transpired in a crime in which she was the victim of domestic violence… approximately 21 months of wrongful incarceration by a justice system that is corrupted itself. A justice system gone awry wherein: (1) prosecutors collaborate with a medical examiner to concoct a criminally bogus autopsy report on Reginald Daye (received a non-fatal stab wound by Mangum in self-defense); (2) defense attorneys join the conspiracy to work against Mangum’s best interests by pretending to defend her while undermining her; (3) an expert defense witness refusing to provide a written report exculpatory to Mangum; (4) a biased media with an anti-Mangum agenda to keep the prosecutorial misdeeds and malfeasances hidden from the public; and (5) politicians, clergy, and civil rights and social organizations (NAACP, ACLU, North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, etc.) lacking the will and/or courage to stand against blatant injustices.

The obvious question is why would Medical Examiner Dr. Clay Nichols, Mangum defense attorneys, a defense expert witness, the media, and social advocacy organizations work with Durham prosecutions in what is obviously a vendetta prosecution to mete out payback for Mangum’s role in the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case? The obvious answer to the question is that they all lack Nifongian courage… that exceedingly rare quality defined as the courage to do the right thing in the face of harsh and extreme consequences. Dr. Clay Nichols, Dr. Christena L. Roberts (defense expert witness), Mangum’s defense attorneys (Woody Vann and Chris Shella), media-types, men and women of the cloth, and politicians all witnessed what happened to former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong when he dared to do the right thing by prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse defendants against a torrent of opposition whipped up by the defense attorneys and the mainstream media. Nifong’s prosecution of the lacrosse defendants, who were positioned atop a pedestal by the media, placed his election bid for the D.A.’s office in severe jeopardy… but that did not dissuade him. It took all the might of the North Carolina State Bar to have Nifong tossed off the case. Because Mike Nifong stuck to his integrity-guns, the decision was made by the Powers-That-Be to stick it to him… and the State went about persecuting him without mercy. He was disbarred, sentenced to jail, deprived of immunity from civil action… all while being skewered in the media. For exhibiting Nifongian courage in the Duke Lacrosse case, Nifong suffered the most draconian and unimaginable of consequences. It is therefore no wonder why Dr. Nichols would prepare a criminally fraudulent autopsy report, Dr. Roberts would refuse to produce a written report, the media would keep wrongdoings concealed from the eyes and ears of the public, and the NAACP, ACLU, and other community groups would remain silent and idle… they all lack Nifongian courage.

In addition to loss of freedom, Mangum has been deprived of visitation rights with her beloved children by Family Court Judge Doretta Walker. Although acknowledging that Mangum is not an unfit mother to her three children, Judge Walker, in the summer of 2011, ordered that Mangum be denied visitation with her three children while she was in any detention center. This gratuitously malicious ruling coincides with other nonsensical legal actions in this trumped up case against Mangum.

So, this holiday season take measure of the things that are truly important… freedom, family, and friends, and place them before money and what it begets. I am sure that this is something that we call all agree upon… even the non-believers, naysayers, ill-willers, detractors, and others of that ilk.

And as we ring in the New Year, let us all be resolute in developing that special courage that requires an idealism, determination, and fortitude… the ability to do what is ethically right, even when doing so is unpopular and defies political correctness. In other words, let’s resolve to become individuals who are teeming with Nifongian courage. That is what would truly make this state, this nation, and this world a better place, and it would without doubt be the way to best pay homage to the Man from Nazareth. 

ADDENDUM: Mangum Defense Fund

It has recently come to my attention that there are two online addresses for a website that is evidently soliciting contributions for a defense fund for Crystal Mangum. These URL addresses are, and  My understanding is that these sites were set up by Attorney Mark Simeon, an acquaintance of Ms. Mangum. As of this point in time I have not visited these sites, however I plan to do so shortly.

I have never met Mr. Simeon, never spoke to him, never phoned him, and never tried to contact him. Through an intermediary I let him know that he has my permission to used this blog site as a resource for information about Ms. Mangum’s case or provide links on his site to information I collected and presented on this site and my website. That said, I want to make it clear that in no way do I, or the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, condone, support, recommend, or have any affiliation with Mr. Simeon and his online sites. In general, I am not a fan of online solicitation because of its inherent problems with accountability. The Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong and I definitely do not receive any benefits from these sites.

As a refresher, the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong is nothing more than a grass-roots organization that is strictly self-supporting… in other words, it does not solicit donations, host fund-raising events, or engage in any activity for the purpose of procuring money. It is not a non-profit organization (does not have a 501 [c] 3 designation), with the brunt of expenses (tee-shirts, postage, travel, printing costs, etc.) being satisfied by me personally.

Regarding the online defense fund sites, I merely advise potential donors to proceed with due diligence and caution as they would with any web-based site designed to solicit contributions. 

Click on link below to view the official Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong 2012 Christmas card.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Dr. Christena L. Roberts – the newest addition of conspirators against Mangum

Word count: 1,633

In a Durham courtroom last Friday, December 7, 2012, Defense Attorney Woody Vann, who was appointed as Crystal Mangum’s backup assistant, brought before the court his scheduled Monday, December 10th meeting with Black Mountain forensic pathologist Christena L. Roberts, M.D., and an unidentified member from the Capital Defender’s office where the tête-à-tête was to take place. This clandestine meeting had been arranged by Mr. Vann without the knowledge of Ms. Mangum, the murder defendant who is representing herself with his appointment as a backup assistant. The stated purpose of this meeting was to discuss Dr. Roberts’ sudden concerns about the privacy rights of the deceased Reginald Daye (the intoxicated abuser who was stabbed by Mangum in self-defense on April 3, 2011). Upon hearing about this gathering for the first time while at her court hearing, Mangum expressed her desire to be present.

Honorable Judge Michael O’Foghludha, one of a revolving door of black robers to preside over Mangum’s hearings, instructed for her to be in attendance (brought over from jail in chains and leg irons) at the get-together. However, the judge set a condition that the meeting was to consist only of Dr. Roberts, Mr. Vann, an unidentified person from the Capital Defense office, and Crystal Mangum. In other words, Sidney B. Harr, a retired physician and supporter of Mangum, was not invited.

In my blog of December 8, 2012, I made the following insightful and prophetic statements:

“A written report by Roberts for a ten hour investigation not completed after more than five months? It doesn’t make sense. What does make since is her desire not to produce a written report about Reginald Daye’s death or the autopsy report by North Carolina Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Clay Nichols. Dr. Roberts is well aware that any report she drafts will directly implicate Duke University Hospital in Daye’s death, and it will support my contention, all along, that Medical Examiner Nichols’ autopsy report of April 14, 2011, contains false findings and an unsupported conclusion regarding Daye’s death. In addition, the report will sink the prosecution’s claim that Mangum’s stabbing of Daye (which was in self-defense) was the direct and proximate cause of his death.”

I also stated as follows regarding this mysterious meeting arranged behind Mangum’s back and its objectives:

“Why travel all the way from Black Mountain, NC, to Durham just in order to give Crystal Mangum a verbal report only… which is what I am expecting. My expectation is that after five months with no written report at hand, Dr. Christena Roberts has no intention of putting in writing the sins of Dr. Nichols, Duke University Hospital, and the City of Durham. This trip, I believe, is part of an intricate ploy to attempt to address Judge Robert Hobgood’s order to provide Ms. Mangum with a written report and yet still not put anything in writing. It’s time for the gamesmanship by Durham prosecutors and turncoat defense attorneys to stop and for Dr. Roberts to immediately provide Mangum with a written report as directed by Judge Hobgood.”

And, for good measure, using Sherlockian deduction, I averred:

“If a written report from Dr. Roberts is forthcoming on the possible Monday visit, I will be shocked.” Unfortunately, I was not shocked… this Monday, December 10th, there was no report from Dr. Roberts.

On Monday, December 10, 2012, at about 3:00 pm, Vann, Roberts, and Mangum convened at the Capital Defenders office, without the presence of the unidentified person from the office. This meeting, most likely orchestrated by Mr. Vann was to help the forensic pathologist Dr. Roberts contravene Judge Robert Hobgood’s order to produce a written report (about Reginald Daye’s death and autopsy) and turn it over to Crystal Mangum. Judge O’Foghludha’s order limiting attendees at this meeting (in particular excluding Mangum supporter Dr. Harr) left Ms. Mangum, a tethered lamb, in a den of famished jackals. Had Dr. Harr been invited to the soiree to look after Mangum’s interests, you can bet that Dr. Roberts would have been a no-show.

For what Ms. Mangum estimated to be three hours, she stated that Dr. Roberts went over the April 14, 2011 Autopsy Examination Report prepared by Dr. Clay Nichols, the North Carolina Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, point by point. According to Mangum, the doctor stated that Dr. Nichols’ autopsy report was essentially accurate. When queried about the perforation to the left lung mentioned in the autopsy report and its absence in the operative report, Dr. Roberts tried to convince Mangum that it is possible for surgeons to miss certain lesions that are found at autopsy… in other words, the emergency department doctors, radiologists, and trauma surgeons at Duke University Hospital, missed a laceration to the left lung and diaphragm. This explanation is a variant on another explanation given earlier from Dr. Roberts via Woody Vann which explained that the lesion to the left lung was caused by the insertion of a chest tube… in other words, Duke University Hospital medical staff injured Daye’s left lung while introducing a chest tube. I am not sure what explanation Dr. Roberts gave for the autopsy report stating that the fundus of the stomach had a sutured laceration whereas the operative report mentioned that the stomach appeared to be normal. In addition to discrepancies between the autopsy report and other medical records of Daye with regards to the left kidney and diaphragm, there is also the question of the multiple left upper extremity lesions described by Dr. Nichols as “defensive injuries”… their presence being contradicted by a preoperative orthopedic consultation and EMS assessment of Daye at the scene. Not only that, but prosecution discovery photographs showed no lesions to the left upper extremity, neither during his hospitalization nor postmortem.

At this meeting, Dr. Roberts and Attorney Vann spent three hours attempting to convince Crystal Mangum that the autopsy report by Dr. Clay Nichols was accurate and correct, and that the case against her was strong. In particular, they tried to make her believe that if they were to produce a written report, it would be detrimental to her case, and be subject to retrieval by the prosecution. This makes absolutely no sense because if the prosecution wanted, they could easily hire their own forensic pathologist to review the autopsy report… but they won’t, because it knows that that would only bring to light the flaws of the Nichols report.

In avoiding the order by Judge Hobgood for Dr. Roberts to produce a written report and send it to Mangum, Dr. Roberts and Woody Vann are hoping that this Monday meeting is a satisfactory substitute. Dr. Roberts even went so far as to say to Mangum that she would not produce a written report. She also told Ms. Mangum that she had not yet completed her investigation.

Well, congratulations are in order for Mr. Vann who has successfully turned Dr. Roberts to the Dark Side… welcoming her to the growing list of conspirators bent on convicting Mangum (the victim of domestic violence) of the first degree murder of Reginald Daye – whose death for which she was not responsible. All along, since he was first appointed by the Court to represent Crystal Mangum against charges related to the April 3, 2011 incident, Mr. Vann’s mission was to work with the prosecution in convicting Mangum, to protect Medical Examiner Clay Nichols (who went out of his way to prepare a fraudulent report to facilitate a murder conviction with a life sentence), to conceal Duke University Hospital’s culpability in Daye’s death, and to eliminate any legal liability against the City of Durham for its malicious prosecution and unjust incarceration of Mangum.

Dr. Christena L. Roberts finds herself entrapped in this legal morass of false statements and intrigue, without an easy means with which to extricate herself. Had she been cognizant of the pitfalls beforehand of being forced to tell the truth and incriminating the state’s deputy chief medical examiner, Dr. Roberts would never have undertaken the assignment. Realistically, there is no other medical examiner or physician in the Tar Heel State who would be willing to review Reginald Daye’s death and autopsy. That is because they all lack Nifongian courage*. They’re afraid to buck the Powers-That-Be.

For Dr. Roberts to defy Judge Hobgood’s order to provide a written report to Mangum is an outrage and affront to the principles of equal justice for all. Mangum is deserving of it so that she can prepare her defense. The defiance of Hobgood’s order along with the entire vendetta-driven case is a humongous blot on the state of North Carolina, and all Durhamians and Tar Heelians should be shamed and embarrassed by it.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media, which has shown much interest in cell phone records of former UNC football coach Butch Davis, and the many parking tickets accrued by UNC football players that were surreptitiously paid off, lacks even a scintilla of apparent curiosity about the autopsy report by Dr. Clay Nichols… despite the report’s inconsistencies and contradictions with other medical records that are easily understandable by anyone with a fifth grade reading comprehension level. By assuming a position of ignorance of the misdeeds and malfeasances associated with the Mangum’s prosecution based on Nichols’ criminally fraudulent autopsy report, the mainstream media, both locally and nationally, can join the Durham prosecutorial team, Mangum’s defense attorneys, and now Dr. Christena L. Roberts in protecting the state’s Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Clay Nichols, Duke University Hospital, and the City of Durham. By not providing a written report, Dr. Roberts is protecting herself, as well. 

* “Nifongian courage” is from the Dictionary of Harr and is defined as: “the courage to do the right thing in the face of the most harsh and extreme consequences.”

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Anniversary of “Day of Infamy” a day of disappointment in Court

Word count: 1,357

Note:  This blog was written prior to seeing
The Herald-Sun article of December 7, 2012

On Friday, December 7, 2012, the 71st anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, it is only fitting that a few bombs were dropped on Crystal Mangum’s second court appearance in which she was representing herself. Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser who now faces trumped up murder and larceny charges as part of a vendetta prosecution, was expecting to have her Motion to Dismiss the Larceny of Chose in Action charge heard before the Court… however, that did not happen. The exact actions that took place in the courtroom are unknown as none of the members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong were in attendance… this due to them being misled by a scheduled appearance of Ms. Mangum on the Court docket which was for twelve noon, whereas her hearing was actually conducted two hours earlier at ten AM.

So without any firsthand information about what transpired at the hearing, the following is based upon what I have been able to piece together about the courtroom events. Honorable Judge Michael O’Foghludha, a Superior Court Judge from Durham presided over the hearing, and he made the determination not to address Mangum’s Motion to Dismiss. My understanding is that Judge O’Foghludha decided not to hear the case because a Certificate of Service had not been filed, and Durham Assistant District Attorney Charlene Coggins-Franks complained to the judge that she had just received a copy of the motion. The fact is that Mangum’s motion was filed exactly one week earlier on Friday, November 30, 2012, at 10:17 AM, along with my Petition for writ of mandamus seeking Mangum’ release from custody on her own recognizance. After filing both documents with the Clerk of Court’s office, I went up one flight to the sixth floor and handed the stamped motion and petition to the receptionist in the District Attorney’s office. Six days later, in the mid-afternoon of Thursday, December 6, 2012, the Durham D.A.’s office had the courtesy to inform me that Mangum’s motion would be turned over to Ms. Coggins-Franks. I am unaware as to when the prosecutor actually did take possession of Mangum’s motion.

That said, Judge O’Foghludha could have heard Mangum’s Motion to Dismiss; the lack of a Certificate of Service shouldn’t’ve represented any impediment to his bringing her motion before the court and ruling on it. Fact is that he elected not to hear the motion, and I can fully understand why. Bottom line is that it takes courage to make a ruling that is favorable to Crystal Mangum, even when completely backed by law and morality. Mangum’s case is so politically charged that not only attorneys, but judges cower at the prospect of having to choose between doing the right thing or carrying out the wishes of the avengers of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their Carpetbagger families. The absence of a Certificate of Service was the tiny porous opening that the honorable judge needed in order to jettison responsibility for acting on a motion that would undoubtedly force him to do the right thing… and grant Mangum’s Motion to Dismiss the Larceny of Chose in Action charge. Courage is a commodity that is in extremely short supply in our society, and the one person who did possess it and stood up in defiance of the Powers-That-Be in order to try and see that justice was done, was himself done in by the justice system with the assistance of the mainstream media… that man of uncommon courage and integrity is former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong.

Paragraph of enlightenment: It is not only Mangum’s defense attorneys, but anyone and everyone connected with the vile and vendetta-driven prosecution of Mangum, who is subsequently under pressure and duress to act in accordance with the wishes of the Powers-That-Be. There was a purpose in making an example of Mike Nifong… and that was to discourage any similar acts of independent legal valor. With this in mind, it is easy to understand why Judge O’Foghludha, in using any excuse at hand, chose to pass on a hearing of Crystal Mangum’s motion to dismiss… kicking the can further down the road another six and a half weeks when the next court appearance for Mangum is scheduled on January 22, 2013. If the prosecution was so thoroughly disadvantaged by not being given notice of the defendant’s motion to dismiss and time to prepare, then the next court date should have been set within a week or two at which time the motion could be heard.

Another development, from what sources have told me, is that Dr. Christena L. Roberts is supposedly planning to visit Ms. Mangum on Monday, December 10, 2012. Dr. Roberts is a forensic pathologist hired with State funds to evaluate Reginald Daye’s death and his autopsy report. The Court authorized payment to her in an order by Judge Henry Hight signed on June 18, 2012, however, according to Woody Vann, who is supposed to be Mangum’s back-up assistant, he told the court approximately two weeks ago that the written report by Roberts had not yet been completed. A written report by Roberts for a ten hour investigation not completed after more than five months? It doesn’t make sense. What does make since is her desire not to produce a written report about Reginald Daye’s death or the autopsy report by North Carolina Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Clay Nichols. Dr. Roberts is well aware that any report she drafts will directly implicate Duke University Hospital in Daye’s death, and it will support my contention, all along, that Medical Examiner Nichols’ autopsy report of April 14, 2011, contains false findings and an unsupported conclusion regarding Daye’s death. In addition, the report will sink the prosecution’s claim that Mangum’s stabbing of Daye (which was in self-defense) was the direct and proximate cause of his death.

Why travel all the way from Black Mountain, NC, to Durham just in order to give Crystal Mangum a verbal report only… which is what I am expecting. My expectation is that after five months with no written report at hand, Dr. Christena Roberts has no intention of putting in writing the sins of Dr. Nichols, Duke University Hospital, and the City of Durham. This trip, I believe, is part of an intricate ploy to attempt to address Judge Robert Hobgood’s order to provide Ms. Mangum with a written report and yet still not put anything in writing. It’s time for the gamesmanship by Durham prosecutors and turncoat defense attorneys to stop and for Dr. Roberts to immediately provide Mangum with a written report as directed by Judge Hobgood.

If a written report from Dr. Roberts is forthcoming on the possible Monday visit, I will be shocked. However you can bet that it will be watered down like the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy… all punches will be pulled.

Also, you can rest assured that if I get my hands on a copy of the report, I will make it assessable to view of people worldwide on this blog site… the true source of enlightenment on all things related to the Duke Lacrosse case and beyond.

Finally, on this last Friday, the 7th, I received a notice that certified mail was awaiting me at the post office. I attempted to retrieve it Friday morning, but it had not yet been delivered to the post office. Now, I do not know the identity of the sender, but using Sherlockian deduction, I have reason to believe that it is from the Authorized Practices Committee of the State Bar. I will collect it on Monday, and if it is the motion by the Bar, I will upload it on this blog site along with my response, once completed.

Although many bombs have been dropped Friday, as the dust settles, I will try to parse out the truth from the innuendo and shine light where the shadow of darkness now conceals the truth about the bogus charges against Crystal Mangum… a victim of domestic violence by Reginald Daye and a victim of vendetta justice by the State. 

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Regarding Mangum case, the State and media are sending the public the wrong message about domestic violence

Word count: 2,563

After reading the blog, Click on the link at the end
to access a directory with additional information.

Today’s news stories are filled with reports about domestic violence which often result in death of one party or murder-suicide. However, the publicized cases are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the number of domestic violence instances occurring in the state that are not covered by the media. The frequency and likelihood of a fatal outcome in these disputes is finally being brought forth, as well as the need to take measures to address these crimes. That is all good, however, the treatment of Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser Crystal Mangum by the State and the media is one giant leap backward.

Ever since she was identified as the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case, Ms. Mangum has been in the justice system’s and the mainstream media’s crosshairs. Although Mangum claimed to have been sexually abused by partygoer’s at a March 13, 2006, Duke lacrosse hosted beer-guzzling, stripper ogling bacchanal, talk was bandied about whether or not she should face criminal charges after Attorney General Roy Cooper dropped charges against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants, without precedence proclaimed them to be “innocent,” and then averred that “nothing happened.” Although Mr. Cooper refused to pursue charges against Mangum because of her supposed emotional problems and mental instability, I suspect the real reason for not charging her was because if taken to trial, the truth would come out… a truth about which the State and media did not want Durhamians and Tar Heelians to know.

A Duke Lacrosse trial would have brought to the surface a lot of unseemly activity by the Blue Devil’s team which had earned it the disreputable reputation it had… one which forced Duke University President Richard Brodhead to warn the lacrosse Coach Pressler to rein in his players… one in which a third of the team had had run-ins with the law (mainly misdemeanors associated with alcohol, under-aged drinking, open alcoholic containers in the car, public drunkenness, and urinating in public), and one which showed disdain towards females. Under the light of any amount of scrutiny, no matter how cursory, the accusation of sexual abuse by this motley crew would be more than plausible.

I surmise that former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, knowing the racial (Ms. Mangum and another African American dancer were called the N-word epithet by partygoers) and political implications of this case, and how the powerful Duke University would likely sweep the incident under the carpet, took control of the investigation in order to assure that equal justice for all was the outcome of this case. That’s when the State stepped in, with the State Bar targeting Mr. Nifong in order to get him off the case. Not only that, but the State and media set out to make an example of Nifong in order to assure that in the future no attorney would dare oppose the will of the Powers-That-Be. Mr. Nifong was then disbarred on some trumped up charges, while the NAACP, and leaders in the African American community silently sat on their hands doing nothing while he was persecuted to the most extreme extent.

In what was to develop into a pattern, Mangum’s side of the story was not presented to the public.

Approximately four years later, Mangum was involved in a domestic violence incident in which an ex-boyfriend struck her repeatedly in the face because of an unflattering comment she made about him. This February 17, 2010 attack, which took place before her three children, galvanized the oldest one to phone 9-1-1 seeking assistance for their mother out of fear for her welfare or life. This was the opening that the State had long sought… a chance for payback against Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse accuser. Even Mangum was wary about the role her past might play regarding the treatment she received by the Durham Police force… so she advised them that their assistance was not required and identified herself using her sister’s name. However, once the men and women in blue had her true identity, the plotting began in earnest.

A bathtub fire of unknown origin was allowed by police to burn without attempts to extinguish it while awaiting the fifteen minute arrival of Durham’s Bravest. Several fire truck units and two dozen firefighters were roused from their beds in the middle of the knight to douse a few clothes burning in a bathtub. Although none of the building’s structure was damaged by flame, the smoke damage to the bathroom that was the consequence of police idleness was extensive. At most, the charge sought against the fire-starter should have been a misdemeanor vandalism, and not felony first degree arson as was indicted by a grand jury.

When led from the apartment, Mangum was held handcuffed in a patrol car while officers talked and mingled with Mangum’s ex-boyfriend. Although he initiated the physical altercation by punching Mangum repeatedly in the face, he was neither arrested nor charged… and instead was described as a “victim of Mangum.” That is the story that the media carried, with no investigator or media-type interviewing Ms. Mangum for her account of what had transpired.

This is a definite case of domestic violence in which the true victim, Mangum, is labeled as the aggressor in an outrageously unbelievable reversal of roles. But the State and the media did not want to delve into the specifics… and neither did the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, a Durham-based organization. Back in 2010, Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong members Sidney B. Harr and Steven Matherly went to that organization to seek support and assistance for Mangum, a victim of domestic violence who was being wrongfully imprisoned in a vendetta prosecution by the State. The Coalition refused to provide any help for Crystal Mangum.

Although the State planned to have Mangum languish in jail for a couple of years before bringing her case to trial, her bond was unexpectedly satisfied after only three months of incarceration, at which time she was release… but under electronic monitoring house arrest. The trial that followed months later resulted in her conviction of three trumped up misdemeanor charges, and a mistrial on the most serious felony first degree arson charge… this despite a featherweight defense. Mangum was sentenced to time served and the prosecutors decided not to re-try her on the arson case.

This brings us to the current legal episode in which Crystal Gail Mangum is being charged with first degree murder in the April 13, 2011 death of Reginald Daye, and two counts of “larceny of chose in action.” The latter charge was filed concomitantly with the murder charge in order to elevate it to first degree status using the “felony-murder rule.” This charge is totally bogus as none of the elements required for “larceny of chose in action” are met as: (1) Mangum did not steal any cashier’s checks and Daye admitted in a police report that he gave the checks to Mangum; (2) Mangum never converted or attempted to convert the cashier’s checks in order to unlawfully obtain the property of another person or corporation; and (3) with Daye’s untimely and unfortunate death – for which Mangum had no responsibility – the prosecution lacks a prosecuting witness. Defense attorneys for Mangum for more than a year and a half have refused to challenge the baseless larceny charge; something that a reasonable person with full knowledge of the facts would conclude that Mangum’s representation was not acting in accordance with her best interests.

That this is a vendetta prosecution by the State is obvious, but what is cleverly concealed from the public by the State and media is the roles of the two participants in this domestic violence incident… as once again, Mangum, the true victim, is the designated assailant, and Reginald Daye, the true aggressor, is depicted as the victim. Although Daye was the victim of a stabbing, which Mangum admits to have inflicted in self-defense, he was the perpetrator of the domestic violence that preceded it and of which it was a consequence.

The State has played down the truths about Reginald Daye while the mainstream media has shown remarkable ambivalence about knowing the man and his demons. Reginald Daye had a violent criminal background that included assault on a female… brass knuckles even being recovered in his apartment. In a police interview with Sgt. Marianne Bond, Daye admitted to punching Lavern Reed, a female, in the face four or five times, although he says that that attack occurred 20-25 years ago. The State and media have also suppressed the fact that Daye was an alcoholic, who Mangum estimated drank a case of beer each weekday, and a gallon of whiskey on weekends. His capacity for prodigious ethanol consumption was evidenced by his apparent alert level of consciousness while he had a blood alcohol level at the time of the incident of 296 mg/dL – a level that would put the average non-alcoholic adult male in a stupor.

That Daye was an enraged and out-of-control aggressor in the domestic violence incident is evidenced by the following: (1) he physically punched Mangum about the face and head with swelling to the left lower lip and left side of her face evident; (2) he physically attacked her by gouging at her face with his fingernails – depicted on police forensic photographs; (3) he pulled out her hair – clumps noted near the bathroom door and in the master bedroom; and (4) he busted down the locked bathroom door, knocking the frame from the jamb, in order to get at a terrified Mangum who was seeking refuge from him.

Ms. Mangum states that Daye had his hands on her throat strangling her when she grabbed a nearby steak knife (which Daye had brought in from the kitchen), and stabbed him once. However, neither Officer Bond nor any other officer or investigator got this history because they never asked her. No one interviewed Mangum because she was arrested first, based solely on Daye’s questionable account of an armed robbery scenario in which she stole money and stabbed him… an account that was echoed by his nephew Carlos Wilson, who did not witness the incident. According to Bond’s own report, when she first visited Mangum in custody, she asked the defendant if she wanted to give a statement, to which Mangum replied, “Yes.” Sgt. Bond then informed Mangum that she was under arrest and charged with assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill, and the officer then read Mangum her Miranda Rights informing her that anything she said can and would be used against her in a court of law. After informing her of her rights, Bond asked Mangum if she “wanted to answer some questions,” to which Mangum responded in the negative, and the alleged interview was concluded with the officer leaving.

At no time since that April 3, 2011 morning after the incident, has anyone on the prosecutor side attempted to obtain Mangum’s statement about transpired in the wee predawn hours earlier. Durham Prosecutors Kelly Gauger and Charlene Coggins-Franks have been content to go along with the version given by the late Reginald Daye and his nephew Carlos Wilson… which apparently goes as follows:

• After coming home from a birthday party early that Sunday morning, Daye, who was heavily intoxicated, got into an argument with Mangum over money? The amount never indicated by prosecutors.

• Daye can’t remember whether or not he may have punched Crystal, however he states that she punched him in the face with her fists several times. (Crystal denies punching Daye in the face but states that when he grabbed her by her legs to pull her off the bed, she flailed her legs and may have kicked him in the face.)

• Daye told her to leave, then admits to later telling her she wasn’t going anywhere… then telling her again to leave?

• According to Daye, Mangum sometime thereafter locked herself in the bathroom to make a call to a male to give her a ride, at which time he busted down the door.

• After breaking down the door, Daye grabs her by the hair in order to escort her out of the apartment… and accidentally pulls out a couple of globs of hair.

• Crystal then goes into the kitchen, grabs a steak knife, at which time he tries to get out of her way, and then, without provocation, she stabs him in the back.

The above account is one that not even the police or prosecutors believe because Mangum was not charged with larceny of property at that time and it was not pursued. There is ample evidence, even in the police account of brutality and violence on behalf of Daye, not to mention his intoxicated state and his uncontrolled rage which led to his busting the door frame from the door jamb.

Prosecutors were even aware of a prior incident of domestic violence that occurred approximately nine days prior to the self-defense stabbing when Daye assaulted Mangum so severely that she called a friend, Larry O’Briant, to give her a ride to a medical clinic. Mr. O’Briant even gave a voluntary statement to the police about this incident that occurred on Thursday, March 24, 2011. However, prosecutors did not even have curiosity enough to even look into this incident… as it did not factor into their accusing Mangum as being the assailant in the April 3, 2011 conflict. Neither prosecutors nor Mangum’s defense attorneys, all aware of the fight that preceded the stabbing by just over a week, asked Mangum about it or had her sign a release to obtain clinic records of her visit. All because they do not want Crystal Mangum to be portrayed as what she was… a victim of domestic violence.

Using a criminally fraudulent April 14, 2011 Autopsy Examination Report by North Carolina Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Clay Nichols, Durham prosecutors have been trying to put Crystal Mangum, a two time victim of domestic violence and an alleged victim of sexual abuse, in prison for the rest of her life without the possibility of parole as payback for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. This goal they have tried to achieve with the cooperation of the mainstream media, and by having politicians (McKissick, Michaux, Hall, Price and others) and civil rights groups (NAACP, ACLU, North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence) look the other way.

Only the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong has stood up to this conspiratorial injustice against Mangum, and because of its efforts, the State is no longer seeking a life sentence for her, but instead is now attempting to force Mangum to accept a plea deal in order to protect the medical examiner, Duke University Hospital for its culpability in Daye’s death, and to protect the City of Durham from liability for its malicious prosecution of Mangum. The Committee is fighting this, as well.

The State and the mainstream media, local and national, can talk tough against domestic violence, but when it comes to proof being in the pudding, it is definitely sending the wrong message by its vindictive and horrendous treatment of Crystal Mangum… a true victim of domestic violence who is, in addition, a victim of the State and the media. 

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Why Crystal Mangum should continue to legally represent herself

Word count: 1,850

NOTE: The day after this blog was posted, on Friday, November 30, 2012, Dr. Harr physically carried to the Clerk of court's office a Motion to Dismiss the Larceny of Chose in Action charge by Mangum, as well as his own Petition for writ of Mandamus to effect the release of Mangum on her own recognizance.  Both of these documents, along with their exhibits have been added to the directory of the link at the end of the blog.

After reading the blog, click on the link at the end to view directory (which now contains an extra button to view the documents filed with the court on November 30, 2012.)

While the saying, “A person who represents himself has a fool for a client,” may be applicable in many, if not most, instances, that is definitely not the case in which Crystal Mangum is currently facing a first degree murder charge and a “Larceny of chose in action” charge (a Class H felony). The criminal charges against Mangum, the victim/accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case, are vendetta-driven and baseless charges that any competent attorney acting in the client’s best interest should have been able to dismantle and debunk hastily. That the prosecution should even have the audacity to level such charges against a young lady who committed no crimes but was the victim of a heinous domestic battery, is due to the politics surrounding the case and the prosecutors’ assurance that the defense attorneys for Mangum will work in collusion against her best interests.

The initial intent of Durham prosecutors Kelly Gauger and Charlene Coggins-Franks was to use the bogus trumped up charges in an attempt to convict Ms. Mangum of first degree murder and have her sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole… not because of Daye’s death, but rather as payback for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. However, Sidney B. Harr, the Mangum supporter and Lay Advocate for the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, has gotten involved in publicly pointing out the following: (1) that major discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictions existed in the April 14, 2011 Autopsy Examination Report tendered by North Carolina Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Clay Nichols; (2) that the true cause of Reginald Daye’s death was due to wrongful endotracheal tube placement for treatment of complications arising from delirium tremens; (3) the stab wound inflicted by Mangum was non-fatal and successfully treated with emergency surgery with a postoperative prognosis for a full recovery; and (4) the “Larceny of chose in action” charge met none of the criteria and was implemented for the sole purpose of elevating the murder charge to first degree… resulting in a reassessment of their original pie-in-the-sky aspirations.

Durham prosecutors’ desperate objectives now are centered around getting Crystal Mangum to accept a plea deal in order to achieve the following major goals: (1) help prosecutors save face and limit legal civil liability for its malicious prosecution and wrongful incarceration of Mangum; (2) protect Medical Examiner Nichols who conspired with the prosecutors to produce a criminally fraudulent autopsy report as the basis for a trumped up murder charge against Mangum; and (3) shield Duke University Hospital’s reputation and its staff for culpability in Daye’s demise… in which a potential hospital staff homicidal contribution was never even taken into consideration by Durham Police or prosecutors.

During Mangum’s 606 days of unjust incarceration (as of today’s date, and counting…), her legal representation has been, for all intents and purposes, impotent and totally lacking in urgency while their client is confined. There has been no attempt to conduct the most minimal investigation by her legal counsel… no attempt made to obtain clinic records of a March 24, 2011 visit by Mangum after being beaten by Daye – occurring nine days prior to the self-defense stabbing incident… no attempt to interview one of Daye’s former girlfriends whom Daye admitted to punching in the face four or five times… nothing!

The request for forensic pathologist Christena L. Roberts to review Daye’s death and autopsy report was made only after Lay Advocate Harr spent a half hour pointing out discrepancies in the autopsy report to Mangum’s attorney on or about May 24, 2012… and a court order to pay for that defense expert witness was issued on June 18, 2012… more than a year after Mangum was charged. Although the court allowed payment for only ten hours of work, a written report by Dr. Roberts has yet to be completed after more than five months.

Mangum did not have the benefit of a preliminary hearing, and during her 600-plus days behind bars, the only motions filed on her behalf by her attorneys have been for bail reduction; the last four failing to get it reduced below $200,000. No motions have been filed to have the “Larceny of chose in action” charge dismissed, no motions filed to have the first degree murder charge dismissed, and no motion made to have Judge Osmond Smith III recuse himself from hearing a bail reduction case for Mangum (Smith presided over the Duke Lacrosse case and made rulings against Mangum and was responsible for sentencing former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong to 24 hours in jail).

During Mangum’s incarceration her attorneys have essentially conducted no investigation and filed no motions of substance… therefore, they have achieved nothing for their client. Crystal Mangum, in representing herself, surely could do no worse. However, because she is currently representing herself she is now in position to have the Court provide finances for an investigator, she is in position to receive all records and documents (including the long-awaited report from Dr. Roberts), and she is able to file motions with the Court. These are invaluable rights that she now has and she needs to hold on to them lest she be put back in the same situation as she was before when others were named as her counsel of record… that situation being that no substantive motions were filed and prosecution discovery and other evidence was withheld from her.

Around August19, 2012, Lay Advocate Harr first contacted Louisburg attorney Paris Branch-Ramadan, a recent graduate from North Carolina Central University Law School… and he has kept her apprised of the case and his contributions on the internet and his filings with the Clerk of Court. Although Attorney Branch-Ramadan has spoken with Mangum on at least two occasions, and received from Harr the entire prosecution discovery disks (thirteen in all), she has evidently not committed to help by assisting Mangum to represent herself. According to an article by Beth Velliquette of The Herald-Sun titled, “Confusion reigns at Mangum court appearance,” Paris Branch-Ramadan “later said that she purposefully did not appear at the hearing because Mangum had not hired her.”

Whether or not Ms. Branch-Ramadan elects to assist Mangum in representing herself, she has already brought to Harr’s attention the fact that the Court acted maliciously in denying Mangum visitation with her children while she “was incarcerated in any detention center.” Judge Doretta Walker issued this order in family court after acknowledging that she was not an unfit mother. Visitation at the detention center is one in which inmates have no physical contact with visitors who they can see through a thick glass barricade.

Attorney Branch-Ramadan’s observation alerted Harr to the fact that this is not the first time the State has used Mangum’s children as a tool to punish her. In the 2010 so-called “arson case,” Durham prosecutors magically proclaimed that Mangum’s children were her “victims” because she allegedly set fire to the clothes in the bathtub while they were inside the apartment. Based on this obtuse rationale, the Court severely restricted the length and conditions of Mangum’s visitation with her three children while she was on electronically monitored house arrest following released from jail after her bond was satisfied.

Now, because of Judge Walker’s ruling, Mangum is denied visitation with her children while she is in the detention center… a cruel and inhumane punitive order. And it is an order which works to the advantage of the prosecution in trying to force Mangum to accept an unjust plea deal in order to be able to see her children again. Once again, Mangum’s defense attorneys have been, or should have been, aware of this and taken steps to rectify this injustice and draconian leverage against Mangum… but, as usual, no motions were filed by her attorneys to allow Mangum to have visitation with her children. As Paris Branch-Ramadan stated, this is nothing but malicious behavior on the part of the State.

Ms. Branch-Ramadan also pointed out to Harr that the “Larceny of chose in action” charge is being brought against Mangum without a prosecuting witness… in other words, the prosecution does not even have an eyewitness who allegedly saw Ms. Mangum steal, take and carry away, or take by robbery the two cashier’s checks. In fact, Reginald Daye, in a police report interview specifically stated that he gave the two cashier’s checks to Mangum to hold on to, and he is never quoted as saying that she unlawfully took possession of them. Daye’s nephew, Carlos Wilson, never claimed to have seen Mangum steal or take the two cashier’s checks. According to Mr. Wilson, in all police accounts, Daye and Mangum were arguing about “money” and not cashier’s checks. Even Daye, in his highly intoxicated state during the early morning hours of April 3, 2011, stated that the argument leading up to the stabbing was centered about “money” and not cashier’s checks. (During an interview the following day of Monday, April 4, 2011, from his hospital bed, Daye confessed to police officer Marianne Bond that the argument of the prior morning’s incident stemmed from his perception that Mangum disrespected him and that she was “running off at the mouth.”)

Because Mangum’s legal representation has been woefully inept (either purposefully or not) in representing her and protecting her rights, it is imperative that Mangum retain control of her legal destiny in this politically charged case and not turn it over to the control of anyone else. If she does, she will be in the same position as she was previously when motions were not filed on her behalf and prosecution discovery and evidence were withheld from her.

I believe that the reason the Dr. Roberts report has not yet been delivered is because as things now stand Judge Robert Hobgood has ordered that attorney Woody Vann contact Dr. Roberts and have her send her report directly to Mangum. However, any attorney who is considered by the Court to be Mangum’s legal representative would be the person to whom the all important report would be sent, and as in the past, it could be withheld from her.

It is obvious that neither the Durham prosecutors nor Mangum’s past defense attorneys want her to have the Dr. Roberts report, and the prosecution is supposedly moving ahead with plans to offer a plea deal without Mangum having the benefit of having seen the Roberts report… which would undoubtedly favor Mangum and strengthen her position. So in order for Mangum to be assured of receiving the report, it is imperative that she remain at the helm of her defense.

If Attorney Branch-Ramadan agrees to sign on to help Mangum, it should only be as a back-up assistant. She should not seek to represent Mangum which could only be viewed by a reasonable person with full knowledge of the facts as an overreaching power grab that could very likely accrue to Mangum’s extreme detriment.

It would be ill-advised and pure folly for Crystal Mangum to now relinquish control of her defense and her destiny, and place her fate in the hands of another. 


Friday, November 16, 2012

Petition for Writ of Mandamus to dismiss “Larceny of chose in action”

Click on link at end to view directory. 
To return to the blog, use browser return arrows.
Word count: 1,004

Posting of this blink marks the 594th day of Crystal Mangum’s wrongful incarceration on bogus and trumped up charges of first degree murder and “Larceny of chose in action.” Throughout her lengthy incarceration, neither of the two attorneys representing her even made the simplest of efforts to dismiss the larceny charge. Had I been representing Mangum in this criminal case arising from the self-defense stabbing incident in the wee hours of Sunday, April 3, 2011, I would have filed a motion to dismiss the “Larceny of chose in action” charge on day one.

First, it is obvious that not only is the charge not supported, but that it was diabolically used in conjunction with the “felony-murder rule” solely for the purpose of validating the murder charge status to first degree. It was the intent of the malicious prosecutors to carry out this vendetta prosecution against Mangum as payback for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case… this is clear and without doubt.

Problems with the “Larceny of chose in action” charge against Mangum can be categorized as follows:
(1) elements of the charge were not met by Mangum’s actions;
(2) timeline of the charge related to the incident suggests that it was not made in good faith;
(3) indictment of the charge in conjunction with the murder charge two weeks following the incident strongly supports that it was made to bolster the first degree status of the murder charge;
(4) nothing in the prosecution discovery even states that Mangum stole cashier’s checks; and
(5) it is illogical for the charge to apply to cashier’s checks in which the payee and remitter” are registered.

Beginning with the “Larceny of chose in action” charge, two elements must be met. First, in this case, the cashier’s checks must be stolen, taken and carried away, or taken by robbery. This did not occur, as Reginald Daye in an interview with Sgt. Marianne Bond on the first postoperative day said that “he gave her the checks to hold on to.” In fact, his intention was for her not only to hold onto them, but to turn them over to the apartment manager on Monday, April 4, 2011, during office hours… a time during which he would be at work as a house painter. Daye correctly knew that she even had deposited them in her purse for safekeeping… as was recorded by Sgt. Bond in this same police report.

The second element of this little known/rarely used law is that it is not merely enough to be in unlawful possession of the cashier’s checks, but that she be required to use them to for the payment of money or the delivery of specific articles that are the property of another person or corporation. This never occurred… this was never attempted… and the prosecution knows this to be a fact. In fact, Mangum never forged, altered, or manipulated the cashier’s checks that were in her possession for days.

If Durham prosecutors made the “Larceny of chose in action” charge in good faith, it would have been brought sometime within the proximity of the incident. Prosecution maintains Mangum took or stole the cashier’s checks on April 3, 2011, but made no such larceny charge until more than two weeks later, concomitantly with the murder charge. The timeline of the simultaneous indictment of the “Larceny of chose in action” charge along with the murder charge furthermore bolsters the premise that its sole purpose was to use it to justify elevating the murder to first degree.

In the November 16, 2012 issue of The Herald-Sun, in an article titled, “Confusion reigns at Mangum court appearance,” for the first time in recorded history, it states in writing that Mangum was charged with “.. stealing two checks from him (Daye).” However, no where in the prosecution discovery in any of the police reports and interviews does it state that Mangum specifically stole “checks,” “cashier’s checks,” or “money orders.” The only references to theft in the prosecution discovery have to do with the theft or unlawful taking of “money” or “rent money.” And, the taking of money or cash is a disqualifier when it comes to the “Larceny of chose in action” charge.

Finally, the “Larceny of chose in action” charge can be assumed by a reasonable person to apply to a blank check or blank cashier’s check, and not one wherein the payee and remitter are denoted… as in the case against Mangum with the apartment listed as payee and Daye as remitter. If unlawfully taken or stolen, a blank check has the potential of being easily and illegally converted to cash for the criminal benefit of the holder who unlawfully obtained it. It is this situation in which the “Larceny of chose in action” Class H felony is applicable. However, if a cashier’s check is filled out with payee and remitter named, its theft or physical loss is of no consequence as the remitter still retains the ability to redeem its value even without the check in his possession. Likewise, it is unreasonable for anyone to steal a check that has been filled out as to payee and remitter since that check’s value can only be converted by the payee or remitter, and not by the thief.

The only reason that Prosecutors had the nerve to bring this ridiculous charge against Mangum to satisfy the murder charge’s first degree standing, was because they were well aware that it would not be challenged by Mangum’s defense attorneys. And it wasn’t. Over more than a year and a half, neither of Mangum’s defense lawyers bothered to file a motion to dismiss this merit-less charge… and that is ineffective legal representation at its best.

In the criminal case against Crystal Mangum, which is nothing more than a house of cards built on a foundation of quicksand, the “Larceny of chose in action” charge will undoubtedly be the first underpinning of this criminal travesty to go. 


Thursday, November 1, 2012

Fraudulent motion filed in Duke case falsely attributed to Mangum

After reading the blog, click the link at end to assess Directory
To return to the blog, click the Browser return arrow
Word count: 730

It has been said that people tend to believe what is true that which they want to be true. This is the case with many of the commenters to this blog site… the Nifong/Mangum detractors and ill-willers, and the Carpetbagger Jihadist agenda sympathizers and colluders. The outrageous motion filed on October 29, 2012 in the U.S. District Courthouse in Greensboro, NC, which undoubtedly was meant as a mischievous fraternity-style prank has been overwhelmingly embraced as being an authentic and true Mangum-authored legal motion by those aforementioned detractors.

A cursory glance by anyone even remotely familiar with the Duke Lacrosse case of 2006 and its aftermath would easily conclude that the claims were not even intended to be taken seriously… yet, it was stamped and entered into the Durham civil case files as though it was legitimate. Those perpetrating this hoax did so in order to ridicule and disparage Mangum, and possibly to poke fun at her for her decision to take control of her destiny and legally represent herself.

Those responsible for the fraudulent filing of the motion in a Federal Court, however, do not realize the seriousness of their actions in using the U.S. Postal Service to mail the document which contains at least two forgeries. This does not represent a harmless joke, but it is a federal crime with dire consequences to those who authored and sent the legal motion. We’re talking F.B.I. serious.

The filed Motion to Intervene, which was fraudulently designed to make it appear as though Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser Crystal Mangum wrote it, mocked the state and the North Carolina justice system. The author(s) of the document had the audacity to file such an outrageous satirical Mangum-centered piece because the state and the media has laid the groundwork for such sophomoric behavior because of its slanted and singular rulings in the Duke Lacrosse case and the criminal cases against Mangum. The prejudicial reporting on those cases by the biased mainstream media has abetted in creating a circus legal atmosphere in which it is fair game to take pock shots at former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and Ms. Mangum with impunity.

Considering the current case against Mangum for example, what is one to think when a medical examiner provides a fraudulent autopsy report for the purpose of charging Mangum with a crime while covering up medical malpractice on the part of Duke University Hospital staff… and when a trumped up larceny of chose in action charge is used to ratchet up the murder to first degree through use of the devious “felony-murder rule”? Along with the unjust disbarment of Mike Nifong and legal persecution of Mike Nifong, it is no wonder that the North Carolina justice system has become the laughing stock of the nation.

Although this filing was meant as malicious entertainment and was not taken serious by those well acquainted with Mangum, Nifong, the Duke Lacrosse case, and cases related to them, evidently one of Reade Seligmann’s attorneys is trying very hard to believe the motion is legit. Giving credence to the document as coming from the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser, attorney Richard Emery suggested that Mangum is “as delusional now as she has been from the outset of this case.” This statement by Mr. Emery is itself a rush to judge the document’s veracity, and in an unprofessional and malicious way uses it to viciously malign Mangum with accusations that are not supported by fact.

Although the article that appeared in The Herald-Sun did contained an error of fact in stating that the three Duke Lacrosse defendants were exonerated, it deserves kudos for publishing the article to let the public know how low those in the anti-Nifong/Mangum camp will stoop to malign them. Even though the article did not contain a quote or comment from Mangum denying any role in that filing, Ray Gronberg has assured me that a follow-up article will give her side of this bizarre occurrence… date of publication around November 2-3, 2012.

It is rare that the mainstream media will expose the hateful and evil transgressions against Nifong and Mangum, and my hat goes off to The Herald-Sun for its news article in unveiling the false and malevolent document, which might have otherwise gone unchallenged throughout the Duke case as being a truthful part of the legal dialogue.


Monday, October 22, 2012

The bigger lie: Post-traumatic alleged inconsistencies versus a proven falsified official medical document

Word count: 2,497

Take Note:  To Return to Flog after visiting a Link,
Click browser return arrow.  Do not exit the window.

The mainstream media has consistently shoved down the throats of the masses that Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser, is the liar who fabricated false charges against three Duke student/athlete/partygoers in March 2006. This false-accuser moniker that the media has affixed to Mangum relies only upon the words uttered from the mouth of North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper on April 11, 2007, during his “Promulgation of Innocence” for the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Unprecedented in the history of juris prudence for an attorney general to proclaim “innocence” or “guilt” when in the process of dismissing charges, Mr. Cooper not only stated that the boys (from families of power, prestige, and privilege) were innocent, but that “nothing happened.”

The media, of course, grabbed this tasty morsel and ran with it… just like Magic back in the day directing a full court press. The media went to extremes to mislead the public into believing that Cooper’s pronouncement was as legally binding as if it were handed down from the U.S. Supreme Court. Truth be told, the innocence proclamation was meaningless as the attorney general belongs to the executive branch of government and not judicial. The media is aware of this, but continues to write that the boys were exonerated… playing one of the state’s biggest Jedi mind-tricks on the gullible and trusting Tar Heelians, statewide.

While proclaiming the boys’ innocence, the media was in overdrive demonizing and vilifying Crystal Mangum by characterizing her as a prolific and pathological liar whose sexual assault accusations were made for the purpose of bringing grief to innocent young men from lives of privilege. A.G. Roy Cooper noted that there were inconsistencies in her story, and dismissed the charges and sealed the case forever. (Duke University wasted no time in clandestinely razing the scene of the crime on Buchanan Street, as if by doing so it would erase the disgraceful event that took place there.)

Per its usual methodology in Duke Lacrosse related stories, the media failed to get Crystal Mangum’s side of the story. Interviews with CNN and other news network programs scrubbed them without broadcast because Ms. Mangum presented herself well and credible… this did not fit in with the image of her that they wanted to depict to the world. Soledad O’brien was one of the interviewers of Mangum… an interview which was left on the cutting room floor.

As a result of the biased, selective, skewed, and one-sided reporting by the media, the unenlightened masses have had forced upon them a negative and derogatory image of this single African American mother of three. (The same abhorrent treatment dished out to former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong who was unceremoniously disbarred and who was forced to resign from the position at which he honorably served with uncommon professional integrity and courage.) Mainstream media assertively discredits Mangum’s sexual assault claims in the Duke case without knowledge to back it up… nothing other than Cooper’s statement that her stories were “inconsistent.”

From an objective view, it is not unrealistic to acknowledge that some statements made after such a traumatic experience could change after sufficient time from the incident to reflect upon what had transpired… clarity borne of the unveiling of painfully suppressed memories. Definitions of “rape” vary legally amongst different states, with North Carolina’s being one of the more restrictively interpreted… and this misconstrued meaning could lend itself to “inconsistencies” by Ms. Mangum. The fact is that it is not all that uncommon for any victim of a traumatic crime to present versions of the event that contain subtle and nonspecific differences. Because absolute consistency in the retelling of an event may be missing, one can not assume that it is an intentional act for the purpose of deception.

Specifically in Ms. Mangum’s 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, I believe misinterpretation of the legal definition of rape was a factor contributing to possible inconsistencies, but other than that, I am not aware of discrepancies referred to by A.G. Cooper during his promulgation.

The bigger lie?

Now lets compare truthfulness of the inconsistencies of Mangum’s 2006 narratives to Dr. Clay Nichols’ Autopsy Examination Report on Reginald Daye, dated April 14, 2011.

Which is the bigger lie? I unequivocally submit that the proven lies contained within the medical examiner’s autopsy report are bigger, more blatant, and far more egregious than any non-consistent misstatement that Ms. Mangum made related to the Duke case.

Dr. Nichols lies about the findings during the autopsy and gives a false and unsupported conclusion about the cause of death with major omissions. First the false findings, and there are many:

1. A laceration (perforation) to the left lower lung. There is no such documentation within the medical records including the autopsy report. There exists no evidence of radiological evidence that the left lung was punctured as the chest x-ray showed no pneumothorax (air in the left thoracic cavity). Also, no mention of any lung lesion or repair, or even a thoracic surgeon consult in the operative report;

2. A laceration to the diaphragm. There is no such mention of a lesion to the diaphragm or any repair in the operative report;

3. A laceration to the fundus of the stomach. This is false as the operative report states, “the stomach pancreas is without injury.” This is in stark contradiction to the report by Dr. Nichols which states, “sutures are identified around the fundus of the stomach.” How is that possible?

4. A laceration to the left kidney. Dr. Nichols stated in his report that the left kidney held sutures, whereas the operative report makes no mention of suturing the left kidney. The operative report reads, “The kidney bed was explored, but no evidence of bleeding was found.” Again, there is no mention of a lesion to this organ or any repair with suturing; and

5. “Multiple minor scabbed over lesions and minor contusions which may represent defensive injuries are found running from essentially the left biceps to the left wrist.” This is contrary to the preoperative orthopedic consult report by Steven A. Olson, M.D. who wrote, “There are no appreciable lacerations or skin breaks in the visualized areas of his 4 extremities.” Not only that, but the onsite EMS report on Daye reads with respect to his left upper extremity: “Assessed with not abnormalities.”

These discrepancies (or “inconsistencies”) in Dr. Nichols’ report prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the April 14, 2011 Autopsy Examination Report which was the basis for the first degree murder charge against Crystal Mangum is fraudulent… and it doesn’t require a medical degree or training to figure that out; just a fifth grade reading comprehension level.

The conclusion that Reginald Daye died from complications of a stab wound to the chest is not supported by Dr. Nichols in his report. He provides no nexus showing how the non-fatal stab wound which was successfully treated by a trauma surgical team at Duke University Hospital (with a postoperative prognosis for a full recovery) led to Daye’s demise. Instead, he conveniently omits any mention of the true predisposing factors and incidents that precipitated Daye’s untimely and unexpected death. In particular, there is no mention of the fact that Daye was an alcoholic, in the setting of a stuporous blood alcohol level of 296 mg/dL… groundwork for alcoholic withdrawal. Despite prophylactic treatment with sedatives, Daye lapsed into delirium tremens which required his transfer to the Surgical Intensive Care Unit. No mention by Dr. Nichols. In the SICU, Mr. Daye vomited after introduction of an oral contrast agent via a nasogastric tube. To protect his airway, he was intubated, but tube placement in the esophagus instead of the trachea (confirmed by a negative EtCO2) resulted in a cardiac arrest. No mention by Dr. Nichols. With CPR and replacement of the endotracheal tube, this time with proper placement in the airway, the heart was resuscitated and began beating spontaneously, but the brain cells had been without oxygen for too long and resulted in Daye being in an irreversible comatose state. No mention by the medical examiner. After a week of observation on life support without sign of neurological improvement, Daye was removed from life support and he died. No mention about this in the autopsy report by Dr. Nichols.

The fact that the autopsy report used to charge Ms. Mangum with murder was fraudulent in its findings and unsupported in its conclusion were made evident to the media after the mid-August 2011 release of the report and in early 2012 after Daye’s medical records were reviewed by Sidney B. Harr. Despite the fact that Harr was a retired physician, the mainstream media ignored his claims that the autopsy report tendered by Dr. Nichols contained fabrications and falsehoods. Specifically, he tried unsuccessful to get WRAL-5 News (which professes to have an interest in confronting issues of injustice [i.e., its documentary about the wrongly incarcerated Gregory Flynt Taylor titled, “6,125 Days”]) to at least look into his claim, however the station ignored him… just like other media contacted by Harr. No investigation would be forthcoming that would look into an alleged criminally false medical examiner’s autopsy report used as a basis for a murder charge to put an innocent Crystal Mangum in jail for the rest of her life (as a vendetta for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case).See letter to Jim Goodmon

The media was consumed in trying to get a hold of the personal cell phone records of former University of North Carolina football coach Butch Davis to see what dirt it could dig up on him, his former assistant John Blake, and the Tar Heel football players who had parking tickets excused. When it came to a possible wrongdoing against the media-produced pariah Crystal Mangum, mainstream media lacked incentive to investigate… mainly because they had no desire to have any story that might garner an ounce of sympathy for Mangum to reach the public’s eyes or ears. Mainstream media knew of the wrongdoing against Mangum and it was their intention to keep it hidden from the people. See letter to ABC-11

On September 27, 2012, I reluctantly hand-delivered a letter to the North Carolina Medical Board for Executive Director R. David Henderson. It contained a formal complaint against Dr. Clay Nichols regarding his falsified autopsy report of April 14, 2011, which was the foundation for the murder charge against Ms. Mangum. I was not seeking to have sanctions or punitive measures taken against him as I considered Dr. Nichols to be another victim of the Carpetbagger Jihadist Agenda against everyone considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case. No doubt, Dr. Nichols had been aware of the cruel and ruthless actions taken by the state and media against Mr. Nifong when he refused to follow the 2006 game plan and dismiss charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants. So, I believe that he was forced to concoct the phony autopsy report to enable Durham prosecutor Kelly Gauger to charge her with murder.

The reason that I filed the complaint against Dr. Nichols was to inform the Medical Board of the fraud committed by one of their licensed practitioners. Because of the protective reporting by the media, Judie Clark, the Director of Complaints, told me that she was unaware of this controversial issue. In addition, I had hoped that the Board’s director or other official would provide a written document on their stationery stating that the Autopsy Examination Report on Reginald Daye that was submitted by Dr. Nichols contained numerous errors and misstatements, and should not be given legal consideration. I explained that such a statement of facts would go a long ways towards the release from confinement an innocent mother of three. My reasonable humanitarian plea was rebuked by the Medical Board, citing regulations that did not authorize such actions as producing such a letter. In other words, the North Carolina Medical Board would rather see an innocent woman remain locked up in a Durham County jail cell rather than write a simple paragraph stating that factual discrepancies in an autopsy report should be disregarded in any legal process.See letter to R. David Henderson


To recap, the mainstream media repeatedly refers to Crystal Mangum as a “false accuser” based solely upon the word of the state’s attorney general that there were “inconsistencies” in her Duke Lacrosse related story.

Proven discrepancies between Dr. Nichols’ autopsy report and medical records factually discredit his report which is the underpinning of the state’s murder charge against Crystal Mangum and the media turns a blind eye and sticks its head in the sand… no curiosity about the truthfulness and accuracy of Nichols’ autopsy report on Daye… no attempt to investigate this criminally fraudulent document used to trump up the murder charge against Mangum.

Dr. Nichols is not referred to as a liar even though his report is nothing more than prevarication upon which no statement can be considered to be honest.

Prosecutors Kelly Gauger and Charlene Coggins-Franks, who conspired with Dr. Nichols to trump up the murder charge against Mangum, are not scrutinized by the media for their misdeeds and malfeasances.

Crystal’s defense attorney Woody Vann does his best to keep hidden the truth about the autopsy report by instructing the defense expert witness Dr. Christena L. Roberts not to produce a written report about her findings regarding Daye’s death and autopsy report.

Dr. Christena Roberts refuses to accept any correspondence from Crystal Mangum which is seeking to have a report about Daye in writing.See letter from Mangum to Dr. Christena Roberts

And the North Carolina Medical Board goes through the motions in pretending to follow up on the complaint filed by Harr.

Bottom line is that Dr. Nichols produced the fraudulent autopsy report because he lacked Nifong the professional integrity and courage to do the right thing… even in the face of dire and unforeseen consequences. The example the state and media made of Mike Nifong for his independent course in the Duke Lacrosse case which contradicted the one demanded by the Powers-That-Be was not lost on Medical Examiner Nichols… and he towed the line as instructed, even though it included dishonesty and criminal activity. The fact that Dr. Nichols publicly stood by his false autopsy report is highly indicative that the Powers-That-Be are standing behind him with promises that he will not be held liable for his part in the framing of Ms. Mangum for murder in Daye’s death.See news article about Dr. Nichols

So, which is the bigger lie? Alleged inconsistencies by Mangum regarding a possible assault during a bacchanalia hosted by the Duke lacrosse student/athlete/partygoers, or a proven fraudulent autopsy report used as the basis for a murder charge in a vendetta prosecution? I submit that any reasonable person with full knowledge of the facts and an objective mind would agree that the bigger lie is that by the state of North Carolina in its persecution of Crystal Mangum, and the mainstream media for its collusion in the cover-up of the state’s reprehensible acts. 