Friday, May 11, 2018

Crystal Mangum's Motion for Default and Summary Judgment

Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

209 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 209 of 209
The Broomstick Man said...

Be careful of my broomstick, or you will be picking pieces of wood out of your butt.

June 1, 2018 at 6:23 PM
Doogie Howser said...

Dr. Harr,

I continue to see salacious comments posted on your blog.

June 2, 2018 at 6:29 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid said:

"Anony, it appears as though you are having trouble differentiating the verbs "give" and "take." Clearly, they are not interchangeable. What Mr. Daye told Officer Bond during a hospital interview on April 4, 2011 (according to Bond's own police report) is that Daye "gave" Mangum the two cashier's checks to hold on to."

Fair point. It really doesn't matter though, because the larceny charge was dismissed.

My point was, and remains, that the indictment was almost certainly based on the statement Mr. Daye gave together with the evidence (namely, that the checks were in Mangum's possession when she was arrested), and not on any perjured testimony by Bond.

You claim that Bond perjured herself before the Grand Jury is speculative, almost certainly wrong, and isn't going anywhere.

June 1, 2018 at 7:31 AM


Sorry, Anony, but I still don't understand your logic. First of all, when Mangum was arrested, the cashier's checks were not on her person. How do you conclude that they were in her possession? Yes, they were probably in her black purse, but that is irrelevant. Even if the checks were in her possession that does not indicate that she obtained them by being given to her or taken by her.

The only evidence available, from Bond's own report, is that Daye gave the two cashier's checks to Mangum. Anyway you try to spin it, this indictment lacks probable cause.

It is unreasonable to believe that a Grand Jury would indict someone for larceny of cashier's checks if the only evidence presented by the sole witness is that the cashier's checks were given to the defendant. Do you see my drift?

June 2, 2018 at 7:00 AM
Nifong Supporter said...


HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

I just completed the sharlog, however, there is a little more that I decided to add... ever the perfectionist!! It's not much and it should be finished for posting by tonight or possibly tomorrow morning. Busy schedule today, so not able to comment further at this time.

Have a great day, all.

As you were.

June 2, 2018 at 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...

Is it still going to pretend that the Larceny of Chose in Action was there for felony murder?

You still gonna show how you refuse to learn?

June 2, 2018 at 7:07 AM
Anonymous said...

Sid said:

"It is unreasonable to believe that a Grand Jury would indict someone for larceny of cashier's checks if the only evidence presented by the sole witness is that the cashier's checks were given to the defendant. Do you see my drift?"

They had the statement of Daye, plus the fact the checks were in Mangum's possession. That was enough to indict.

Your case is a loser. Hopefully you will learn something from it. However, given your history, probably not. There is no point discussing it further.

June 2, 2018 at 11:56 AM
The Broomstick Man said...

Stop acting like a little turd. Doogie. Dr. Harr knows that I have his back and his butt.

June 2, 2018 at 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...

Sidney, what is happening with the Walker testimony reversal?

June 2, 2018 at 4:48 PM
Anonymous said...

Sid,

Where is the log? Everything you post here is pretty much worthless, including your promises of when you will provide documents.

June 4, 2018 at 10:10 AM
«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 209 of 209   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)