NC Justice System: Cruelty without Christianity

To his credit as a columnist, The News & Observer’s Barry Saunders in a recent commentary brought up an issue that is rarely touched upon by the media… the cruelty that seems embedded in our state’s criminal justice system. In his article, Mr. Saunders alluded to Anson County Prosecutor Michael Parker’s treatment of a mentally retarded defendant when he wrote, “Parker spitefully refused Dix workers’ request to take him to the State Fair.” However, Parker carried spite much further by directly interfering with Brown's placement by sabotaging the arrangements at an assisted living facility that had been painstakingly arranged by social workers after his 14 years of wrongful incarceration. Thereafter state employees involved in helping Brown find appropriate housing had to work in secret to prevent District Attorney Parker from intervening.

Is the cruelty exhibited by Michael Parker typical? Yes, and it can be found among police officers serving on the front lines of the urban battlefield to judges sitting behind the benches, and even among ancillary workers in the social/criminal justice field. Is the cruelty exhibit by Parker to be construed as Christ-like behavior? No. People who call themselves Christians and act like heathens are as phony as the currently trumped up charges against Crystal Mangum and those leveled against Mike Nifong by the State Bar. It takes more than attending church to embody the true spirit of Christianity.

The vendetta justice treatment of Crystal Mangum is an example of the cruel and malign attitudes of many in the justice system. The vindictive/retribution motive empowering the backlash by all state officials and staff against Ms. Mangum has its roots in her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. Even though she was the victim in that incident, the state, Carpetbagger families, and the media defined her as the villain. Cruelty in the present problems engulfing Ms. Mangum began on the night of February 17, 2010. Police were summoned to her apartment in response to a 9-1-1 call placed by Ms. Mangum’s daughter who feared her mother might be killed after Mangum’s ex-boyfriend began punching her in the face. When Crystal’s true identity became apparent to police, she was designated as the instigator, aggressor, and offender, and her ex-boyfriend, with a past history of physical violence against women, became the vulnerable victim of the altercation. Then the Durham Police Department got creative and manufactured a crime (which they called “arson”) and laid the blame on Ms. Mangum. A specific incident of police cruelty manifested itself by their commands given to Ms. Mangum to “stand up” while she was lying facedown on the floor with her hands cuffed behind her back. Police reports referred to this as Ms. Mangum refusing to follow commands. (Ask yourself, would a true Christian, in emulating Jesus Christ, taunt a helpless woman lying facedown with her hands cuffed in back, by ordering her to stand up? Is that what Christianity is about?)

What is so tragic about this entire incident is that Durham Police harbored unjustified animosity towards Ms. Mangum based solely on her role in the Duke Lacrosse case, and they abused their power by exacting revenge based on fraudulent and trumped up charges. Most serious was the attempted first degree murder charge. No where in the Durham Police reports is there anything to substantiate such a charge. Likewise, the charge of identity theft was a stretch, to say the least. Ms. Mangum was concerned with how the authorities would respond if they knew her true identity and realized her link to the Duke Lacrosse case. The events that transpired that night validated her concerns, as she was hauled off to jail and placed under a $1 million bail, despite being the victim of domestic violence.

Magistrate B. Wakil acted cruelly towards Ms. Mangum by imposing a $1 million dollar bail on someone who was definitely not a flight risk or a threat to society. By issuing that unreachable bail Ms. Mangum languished in jail, unable to report to work at her full-time job. Because of the bail set by Wakil, Ms. Mangum lost her source of income (with its health benefits), which meant she was unable to pay rent for her apartment (which she lost). Behind bars, she was unable to attend classes at NCCU where she was enrolled in the graduate program working towards a Master’s degree; she was dropped from the courses after she obtained a loan to pay for tuition, books, and supplies. In jail, she was unable to take care of her three children, and she lost custody of them.

Wakil was merely a cog in the wheel of the injustice visited upon Ms. Mangum, but her role in unnecessarily and brutally disrupting Mangum’s life was instrumental and cruel beyond measure. Nothing in the police report could support such draconian treatment. While Ms. Mangum struggles, trying to keep her head above water, Magistrate Wakil goes on with her life, without accounting for the wanton damage to that of another.

Of course, Durham Assistant District Attorney Angela Garcia-Lamarca holds the lion’s share of cruelty and inhumanity towards Ms. Mangum because she is the prosecuting attorney. Ms. Garcia-Lamarca, as a prosecutor, is charged not only with representing the state, but also with seeking the truth… acting as a “Minister of Justice,” if you will. But she has become the hub in this conspiracy of evil by proceeding with a prosecution which is suspect, lacks merit, and trumped up. Her initial plea offer to Ms. Mangum shortly after her arrest was for Mangum to plead guilty to the false charges (eight in total, including attempted first degree murder, arson, assault and battery, and child abuse) against her and serve a two year prison sentence. What a deal. Her public defender thought she should give it serious consideration stating that if she went to trial and was convicted she could possibly be sentenced to six years behind bars. It was only after the miraculous satisfaction of her $100,000 bail by generous and benevolent bail bondsmen several months later that the prosecution’s plea offer was modified as follows: plead guilty to arson, three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile, injury to personal property, and resisting a public officer in exchange for time served (three months). This is quite a drastic departure from the prosecutor’s previous offer, which goes to emphasize the non-existence of the prosecution’s case.

Ms. Garcia-Lamarca’s cruelty is also responsible for totally destroying Crystal Mangum’s life. Not being a flight risk or threat to society, Ms. Mangum should have been released without bail, so that she could continue to work, pay the bills, attend classes, support her three children, and help take care of her parents. Instead, Ms. Garcia-Lamarca took the toughest position possible to assure that Ms. Mangum would be locked up for a lengthy period of time. Now ask yourself, if Jesus of Nazareth was prosecuting the case against Ms. Mangum, would he proceed as Ms. Garcia-Lamarca? Undoubtedly not… and if he was given the identical case by police, after looking at it, he would dismiss all charges and rebuke police officers for trumping up such garbage.

District Court Judge Claude Allen’s cruelty and animus against Ms. Mangum is evident by his ruling to subject Ms. Mangum to electronic house arrest in the event that she bonded out. Ms. Mangum (who is neither a flight risk nor threat to society) should not have even been placed under bail, much less considered for monitoring and house arrest after making bond. Judge Allen gave no explanation for this cruel, bizarre and unjust ruling. But, he is not held accountable by any person or body. The Honorable Judge Jennifer Knox when confronting a suspected rape defendant who had been placed under similar conditions (requiring house arrest and monitoring if bonded out), reduced the amount of his bail to $300,000, but dropped the condition of house arrest if he bonded out. Surely, one would consider a suspected male rape defendant more of a threat to society than a female victim of domestic violence. But Judge Knox acted honorably and righteously by dismissing the house arrest condition. There is no doubt that in considering the two aforementioned judges that Judge Knox acted in the true spirit of Christianity. The same cannot be said for Judge Allen.

Crystal Mangum, a victim in the Duke Lacrosse case, has been caught up in the vindictive vortex spun in response to the call of the Carpetbagger Jihad. And this malicious fervor against Mangum and surrogates of Mike Nifong has permeated through all walks of life and levels of government… including the Jail Diversion Program. This county agency provides defendants with an alternative to incarceration while awaiting trial. Since her May 18, 2010 transfer from the Durham County Detention Center to house arrest, Ms. Mangum has been under its auspices. Although she achieved limited relief from the courts (unrestricted mobility weekdays from 8:00 am until 5:00 pm), she is still required to be at home in the evenings and on weekends.

Recently, Ms. Mangum requested to have a weekend free in order to go to the beach. Her immediate supervisor authorized her to have the freedom to enjoy this activity. Days later, she learned that the supervisor had been overruled by someone higher up in the pre-trial program’s chain. The excuse given for denying Ms. Mangum’s request is that “it wouldn’t look good.” This mean-spirited denial by the Jail Diversion Program is yet another troubling example of the cruelty that is so prevalent in the state’s criminal justice system that it has been accepted as the norm. But inhumanity was not the only driving force here… the state does not want to do anything that would make Ms. Mangum look vulnerable, innocent, or non-threatening. Keeping her tied to house monitoring on a short leash, solidifies the media created perception that Ms. Mangum is an imminent threat and danger to society… just like the affable and severely retarded Floyd Brown (as determined by Prosecutor Michael Parker). Therefore, because Ms. Mangum and Mr. Brown do not come from families of wealth, power, and prestige, the North Carolina system of “selective justice based on Class and Color” has no qualms with their being subjected to cruel treatment and punishment.

The state does have a mandate to protect its citizens from criminals and the crimes they commit. That said, in a civilized society, defendants, whether charged or convicted, deserve to be treated with basic dignity and compassion. To act in a malevolent manner against those disadvantaged by being in the throes of the correctional system is contrary to the very principles upon which Christianity is based. Ask yourself this question: “If Jesus of Nazareth was managing the Durham County Jail Diversion program, and Crystal Mangum (wrongfully charged, wrongfully placed on electronic house arrest, not a flight risk, and not a threat to society) requested to have a weekend free to go to the beach, what would he say?”

Million dollar bail… a case comparison – Part 11

On June 4, 2010, sixteen year old Ashley Moore of Dunn, NC, died when the SUV in which she was a passenger crashed into the side of a Wal-Mart building. Police believe the driver, Dillon Tart, 18, purposely rammed the vehicle into the structure following an argument between the two teenagers. Tart, who sustained non-life threatening injuries, was charged by police with second degree murder. However, while awaiting trial on the murder charge, he has been placed under house arrest. No bond. Just house arrest.

Now, compare that to what happened on the night of February 17, 2010, to Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim, who was punched in the face by her ex-boyfriend. She was charged with attempted first degree murder by Durham Police officers, although the basis for this charge was never explained, and it was not sought during a grand jury indictment. The attempted murder charge was used by Magistrate B. Wakil to help justify the outrageous $1 million bail set against Ms. Mangum. Durham Police then staged a fire in the bathtub of Ms. Mangum’s apartment and accused her of arson. They also alleged Ms. Mangum caused damage to the car of her ex-boyfriend, without, of course, any credible evidence to substantiate the claim. Ms. Mangum was arrested and spent the next three months in jail. District Court Judge Claude Allen, without explanation, instated the condition that if Ms. Mangum bonded out of the bail which he reduced to $250,000, then she would need to be placed under electronic house arrest. Subsequent judges who sat on the bench regarding hearings on this matter (Judges Paul Ridgeway, Michael Morgan, and Kenneth Titus) left the condition of house arrest in place. Although Ms. Mangum has been given release on weekdays from 8 am until 5 pm, the house arrest is still in effect.

Ms. Mangum is not a flight risk, and there is a $100,000 bond in place to assure that she shows up to court to face charges against her. She is not a threat to society. Her ability to try and get a job and move on with her life during the pre-trial period has been hampered greatly by the house arrest order put in place by Judge Allen. Why is this house arrest order in place?

Is it fair that a young man charged with second degree murder should be placed under house arrest, while an African American woman who has been battered by her ex-boyfriend and charges trumped up against her by Durham police should be sent to jail and placed under a $1 million bail? Does this make sense? Ms. Mangum did not kill anyone. She had no murder weapon. The attempted first degree murder charge was nothing more than a trumped up charge, like all of the others against her.

Let me make this clear. The man who killed a woman does not have to satisfy bail while awaiting trial. He can just go straight to house arrest. Now James Arthur Johnson waited 39 months for his trial, again in which he did not kill anyone, but in fact solved a crime. And, just like Prosecutor Angela Garcia-Lamarca, Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe had no intention of going to trial and folded like an accordion when time for stalling ran out. Then there’s Floyd Brown, who was held fourteen years (14) without a trial, by Anson County Prosecutor Michael D. Parker. Brown did not kill anyone, and the prosecution knew it as the confession they put together for him was far too demanding and sophisticated for Brown to make due to his significant mental retardation.

There is no doubt that North Carolina has a selective justice system that is based on Class and Color, and the media does its best to conceal this fact. Class and color definitely figure into the selective treatment that Crystal Mangum is being subjected to by the state.

Now, if anyone can give a reasonable explanation as to why Mr. Tart (who killed a 16 year old girl and is charged with second degree murder) is released to house arrest without any bail being set, and Ms. Mangum (who is a victim of domestic violence) is charged with attempted first degree murder, arson, injury to personal property and other trumped up charges) and is placed under a $1 million bail, which is ultimately lowered to $100,000 with the condition that if she bonds out she will be placed under house arrest, then he/she will be entitled to receive a $1,000 reward. The explanation must be reasonable and logical to me, in order to collect, and, of course, the award will be made available only after James Arthur Johnson receives the $20,000 reward he earned by solving the Brittany Willis murder.

This is the third logic challenge for $1,000 that I have issued. Because no one has come close to winning on the two previous contests, I have considered offering a guaranteed consolation prize for the best answer. The prize would probably be some type of autographed artwork, possibly connected with the “Super-Duper Cooper” comic strip. More details about the challenge will be forthcoming. (However to receive an award, a name and address must accompany the answer. Be sure to make it clear that it is in reference to Challenge #3. Also send to e-mail: justice4nifong@gmail.com.) This challenge begins today, and I’m not yet sure when it will end… maybe in a month or two.

Finally, the media’s best kept secret from the public. Find out the real link between the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and the media. Visit the following link. I welcome your response. (Click the button Posted August 15, 2010... mistaken date... should read August 5. Will make correction later.)
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/btnnews/btnnews.htm

Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca is desperate for plea deal with Crystal Mangum

Like many cases in which a prosecutor has absolutely no case against the defendant (the James Arthur Johnson case comes to mind), the prosecutor, instead of doing the right thing and dismissing all charges against the defendant, will more likely than not try to entice, cajole, force, or use any means necessary to make the defendant accept a plea deal. This strategy is most effective when the wrongfully accused defendant is tucked away safely behind bars, and a plea deal in exchange for imminent freedom looks mighty appetizing to the defendant, especially after spending many months or years behind bars. The prosecution finds the plea deal appealing because it means that he/she will not have to go to trial and risk facing embarrassment and ridicule for bringing a garbage case before the courts. More likely than not, in the majority of these cases, the prosecution is relying on a plea deal to close the case and doesn’t even bother to prepare to go to trial. This is what happened in the James Arthur Johnson case, and this is what the prosecution under Durham Assistant District Attorney Angela Garcia-Lamarca is attempting to do to Crystal Mangum, the victim in the Duke Lacrosse case.

In the fiasco that was the James Arthur Johnson case, Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe charged James Arthur Johnson, the young African American teen who turned over to police the name of the true killer of Wilson teen Brittany Willis, Kenneth Meeks (also an African American male). Clever Wilson investigators managed to get young Meeks to falsely implicate James Arthur Johnson in the crime by telling Meeks that his friend “snitched” on him. Prosecutors charged Johnson with crimes against Brittany Willis, which included murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery, based solely on the statements of the confessed killer who had earlier confided in Johnson about the murder only to later learn from police that it was Johnson who fingered him. There was no forensic evidence and no witness to link Johnson to the victim or the crime scene. The Wilson police theory was that Johnson robbed, kidnapped, raped, and killed Brittany Willis with Meeks as his accomplice, and then when he heard the offer of a $20,000.00 reward for information leading to an arrest in the crime, he went to police to turn in his partner in crime in order to collect the reward. Johnson was held in jail for a couple of years before Meeks, the killer, retracted his statement about Johnson’s involvement, explaining that he made the false accusation out of anger. With its sole witness recanting, did Prosecutor Wolfe dismiss charges against Johnson…? No! Instead, he conjured up two eyewitnesses, who both happened to have connections to the Wilson Police Department (one of whom was a retired Wilson police officer). Before Wolfe could use these false witnesses to convict Johnson, Dr. Rev. William Barber, president of the NAACP made his appearance, and with the media scrutiny he brought, Wolfe and Wilson District Attorney Howard S. Boney, Jr. decided to quickly and silently jettison their two latest eyewitnesses. It was then, without evidence, without witnesses, and without a case that the Wilson prosecution launched its efforts to obtain a plea deal with Johnson. As is typical in this situation, the prosecution proceeded at a snail’s pace and tried to reach a plea deal right up to the time the court date could no longer be delayed. Wolfe and Boney’s bluff failed, and when it came time for the trial to begin, the prosecution folded like an accordion. On the day of court, they announced that they would turn the case over to a special prosecutor.

Special Prosecutor Belinda Foster, an assistant district attorney from Forsyth County, was forced to take over prosecution of the Johnson case by her superior, District Attorney Tom Keith. She agreed to do so only on the condition that she not be required to try the case in court. D.A. Keith agreed, and it was made clear early on that her involvement would be limited. After a couple of months passed, to give people the impression that an investigation was being conducted by the special prosecutor and her diligent crew, Ms. Foster dropped the charges of murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery against Johnson, and, as foreordained, she charged Johnson with “accessory after the fact” for wiping some fingerprints off the victim’s car long after the crime had taken place. Despite having served 39 months in jail on serious charges that were dismissed and now facing only an “accessory” charge, a high, but attainable, bail of $60,000.00 for Johnson was set by the judge. Shortly thereafter, he bonded out.

State prosecutors refused to touch the Johnson case with a twenty foot pole, so the Administrative Office of the Courts ultimately found a special prosecutor from the ranks of the lawyers in private practice. At additional cost to taxpayers, the new Special Prosecutor W. David McFadyen, who used to work as a prosecutor, pretended to conduct a lengthy and complete investigation into the Willis/Johnson case. Special Prosecutor McFadyen threatened Johnson with additional hard time in jail if he was to be convicted for wiping fingerprints off the car (an act which had absolutely no bearing or relevance on what justice transpired with respect to confessed murderer Meeks). With the judge refusing (without explanation) a defense motion for a change of venue from the town of Wilson (which had been racially divided by the prosecution and press), Johnson finally succumbed (not wanting to risk the possibility, however remote, of returning to jail) and pled guilty to “misprision of felony.” Misprision of felony is a rarely invoked charge used against someone who has knowledge of a crime but does not share it with authorities. Although Johnson pleaded guilty to the charge, he was actually not guilty of it because he did, in fact, voluntarily and without legal counsel in tow, tell police everything he knew about the crime. In getting this plea deal in exchange for time served, the prosecution proudly puffed out its chest because it had prevailed in legally justifying locking up James Arthur Johnson for 39 months for the crime he committed of waiting three days before coming to the police to tell them of his knowledge of the crimes against Brittany Willis. For solving the homicidal case, Johnson never received the $20,000 reward that was offered by the family and friends of Brittany Willis… the only thing he received was 39 months.

The way in which Prosecutors Wolfe and Boney kept an innocent James Arthur Johnson in jail for 39 months without a shred of credible evidence, is a text-book way of making a person serve a long sentence without being convicted of a crime. This is what Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca had planned to do with Crystal Mangum, and she got off to a successful start. First serious charges were trumped up against Ms. Mangum, such as attempted first degree murder and arson. These were used to justify the hefty $1 million bail set by Magistrate B. Wakil. When Judge Claude Allen lowered the bail to $250,000.00, he set up a safety net by establishing the condition that if Ms. Mangum did bond out, she would be placed under electronic house arrest. This was a safeguard which the judge and prosecution team felt would not be needed. But when bail was unexpectedly made for Ms. Mangum by a benevolent and generous bail bondsman, her jail sentence was prematurely terminated after serving only several months behind bars. From initial plea offers made shortly after Ms. Mangum’s arrest, it is apparent that the prosecution would have settled for Ms. Mangum spending at least two years behind bars. It was undoubtedly a great disappointment when Mangum bonded out after only three months in the Durham County Detention Center. Once Ms. Mangum was released from strict custody and placed under electronic house arrest, prosecutors lost their main bargaining tool for acquiring a plea deal… incarceration behind bars. The prosecution’s focus turned immediately to trying to arrange a plea deal with Ms. Mangum, so shortly after her release from the detention center to house arrest, Garcia-Lamarca offered through the Public Defender the following plea deal: Admission of guilt to the following charges 1) first degree arson, 2) three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, 3) injury to personal property, and 4) resisting a public official, in exchange for a sentence of time served. Wisely, Ms. Mangum refused.

Now, I would not be surprised if the prosecution made the following offer on August 4, 2010, at Ms. Mangum’s hearing: Prosecution will dismiss the first degree arson charge with Ms. Mangum pleading guilty to the following charges 1) three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, 2) injury to personal property, and 3) resisting a public official, in exchange for time served. (Note, the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor is based upon the arson count, so prosecutors may offer to dismiss that charge as well.)

Bottom line is that the prosecution is desperately fishing around for a plea deal. It is not preparing to take the case to trial, because like Prosecutor Bill Wolfe and Wilson D.A. Howard S. Boney, Assistant D.A. Angela Garcia-Lamarca has no case against Crystal Mangum. Furthermore, to proceed to trial would involve many members of the Durham Police Department committing perjury. And, if the police are willing to lie in their reports about Ms. Mangum putting clothes in a bathtub, it is not much of a stretch that they would, in fact, have the wherewithal to set the clothes on fire themselves… which is most likely what happened. How else would one explain the police closing the bathroom door on a bathtub with some clothes on fire and calling the fire department? No effort was made by police to even turn on the water in the bathtub. Police allowed smoke damage to accumulate in the apartment to which they most likely set on fire. By placing the midnight call, Durham police brought 25 members of the Durham Fire Department to Ms. Mangum’s apartment in order to put out a few clothes on fire in a bathtub. This just does not make sense. The sparse and vague timelines in the police and fire reports are contradictory, do not make sense and throw a lot of water on the prosecution’s purported story of what took place the night of February 17th.

What Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca needs to do is stop the madness masquerading as a criminal case against Ms. Mangum… she can accomplish this by dismissing all charges against Ms. Mangum immediately. The prosecutor needs to stop wasting taxpayer money for unwarranted electronic monitoring, and monies being paid to a defense attorney on a case against Mangum that is totally trumped up.

You can bet that if Ms. Garcia-Lamarca had a valid and just case against Ms. Mangum, she would proceed posthaste to trial, and seek the maximum penalties possible. Instead, with only trumped up garbage against Ms. Mangum, Garcia-Lamarca dillydallies desperately trying to eek out a plea deal to any charge with Ms. Mangum. This is a pathetic demonstration of jurisprudence practiced in North Carolina, and is what makes the Tar Heel State the laughing stock of the country.

If the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong has anything to say about it, the unjust tragedy that befell James Arthur Johnson will not be revisited upon Crystal Mangum. Assistant D.A. Garcia-Lamarca needs to forget about trying to reach a plea deal with Ms. Mangum (any plea deal requires Ms. Mangum to admit to a crime that she did not commit), and either prepare her garbage case to go to trial (wasting taxpayer money in the process) or dismiss all charges against Ms. Mangum immediately. A plea deal in this case is not in the cards... it's not even on the table.

Judge Claude Allen owes an explanation in Crystal Mangum case

If the trumped up charges were not enough, Magistrate B. Wakil compounded problems by placing a $1 million bail against Crystal Mangum. What could justify such a high bail, you ask? It must undoubtedly be the charge of attempted first degree murder that was lodged against Ms. Mangum by the arresting police. The best I can tell, as the police reports are really vague, sketchy, and non-existent when it comes to details, Ms. Mangum, after seeing her ex-boyfriend re-enter her apartment following their earlier encounter, allegedly lunged forward towards him and shouted something to the effect that, “I’m going to stab you.” Although she may have uttered those words, police did not record her as having any implement with which to carry out her threat. In fact, she was never recorded as having anything in her hands, except clothes which she allegedly placed in the bathtub. This, of course, is a total fabrication, as she never carried clothes in the officers’ presence, and the bathroom door was closed until Durham Police Officer Tyler kicked it in (long after Ms. Mangum was handcuffed). Anyway, the alleged forward movement by Ms. Mangum coupled with the words “I’m going to stab you,” constituted grounds for attempted first degree murder.

Compare this with the case of Labrian Lynch who had a domestic dispute with his girlfriend. During the dispute, Mr. Lynch stabbed his girlfriend in the leg with a knife. To escape from him, she jumped out of the car which they occupied, and ran into the street where she was struck by another car. She was taken to the emergency room, then hospitalized for treatment. Mr. Lynch was arrested on the charge of “assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury.” Now, he was not charged with “attempted first degree murder” even though he did, in fact, stab his girlfriend. In other words, you won’t be charged with attempted first degree murder if you stab someone, but you will be charged with attempted first degree murder if you lunge, unarmed, towards someone and say, “I’m going to stab you.” This is the sort of thing that makes North Carolina’s justice system the laughing stock of the country.

Mr. Lynch’s bail was set at $60,000, a fraction of the initial $1million bail for Ms. Mangum on trumped up charges. And when Mr. Lynch’s bail was satisfied, he was told not to have contact with his girlfriend. He was not put under electronic house arrest with an anklet. Yet, Crystal Mangum, a victim of domestic violence who posed no flight risk or threat to society was placed under house arrest after satisfying a $100,000 bail. Why? I don’t know, but it is my understanding that the condition requiring Ms. Mangum to be place under house arrest in the event that she bonded out came from District Court Judge Claude Allen. He was the first judge to sit in on a hearing for Ms. Mangum after her arrest, and he reduced her bail from $1million to $250,000. When he did so, he put in place the condition that if she bonded out, she would be required to be placed under electronic house arrest.

To my knowledge, Judge Allen never explained why he felt that it was necessary to impose this punitive and burdensome condition on Ms. Mangum in a case that a cursory look would tell anyone that the charges were bogus. Judge Allen, furthermore had no reason to believe that Ms. Mangum would be a flight risk, as she was born in Durham, had spent most of her life in Durham (with the exception of a couple of years while serving in the U.S. Navy), had three children in Durham, had no car or means of transportation, and had not the financial wherewithal to pick up and move elsewhere. Was Judge Allen’s action in requiring house arrest on a defendant who had bonded out arbitrary? To determine whether or not it was the rule or the exception to the rule would necessitate an investigation of how Judge Allen handled other similar cases. If I knew Judge Allen’s past history, I could more accurately determine the motives for his peculiar house arrest ruling. However, until I have more data, I am inclined to believe that his action in requiring monitoring of Ms. Mangum was directly due to his desire to adhere to the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda, which calls for the malicious and vindictive treatment of those determined by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong-end of the Duke Lacrosse case. Whether or not it was a conscious or subconscious decision is another matter that might be considered for debate. The mainstream media’s success in playing Jedi mind-tricks on the public is a powerful force which should not be underestimated.

Only Judge Claude Allen has an idea as to the reasons why he made the condition that Ms. Mangum be placed under house arrest in the event she was able to bond out. I think that it is important for him to explain the reasoning behind that determination. My opinion is that he set forth that condition as a last-ditch measure to assure that in the unlikely event Ms. Mangum was able to bond out, that she would still be under the control of the prosecutor… that the prosecutor would still have a bargaining chip with which to try and secure a plea deal with Ms. Mangum.

I am aware of only one other case in which the condition was in place that if a defendant bonded out he/she would be placed under house arrest. This is the case of a suspected rape defendant named Gregory Boykin, and it took place a couple of month after Judge Allen’s ruling in the Mangum case. Someone, I believe a magistrate, set bail at $500,000 (half the initial bail of Ms. Mangum) and set a condition that if he bonded out, he would be required to be under electronic house arrest (the same conditions that Ms. Mangum faced). Two days later, however, Mr. Boykin’s case was brought before the Honorable Judge Jennifer Knox, who reduced his bail to $300,000, and dismissed the condition that he would have to be placed under house arrest if he satisfied bail. In other words, he would be treated like everyone else who satisfied bail… he would be free until his case came to trial. The reasons Judge Knox struck down the house arrest condition for Mr. Boykin I do not know, but I believe that she did it because it was the fair, ethical and moral thing to do.

I applaud the Honorable Judge Knox for doing the right thing in Gregory Boykin’s case. Judges Paul Ridgeway and Michael Morgan, who have sat on hearings before Crystal Mangum, both failed to fully address the house arrest and monitoring issue, and let it stand. It is Judge Allen, however, who owes all an explanation for imposing the electronic monitoring issue in the first place. An explanation is due in order to satisfy questions of fairness and impartiality in our state’s justice system. Until a logical reason for implementing the house arrest condition is forthcoming from Judge Allen, faith in the state’s system of justice will be lacking.


To test your comprehension on a recent topic about MSNBC Senior Legal Analyst Susan Filan, visit the link below and click on Quiz 9. You will be graded.
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/quiz/quiz.htm

Prosecution’s last bargaining chip… Crystal Mangum’s house arrest

A desperate Durham prosecution team, led by Assistant District Attorney Angela Garcia-Lamarca, is coveting the house arrest of Crystal Mangum which was made a condition by Judge Claude Allen of her release upon making $250,000 bond. When Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway reduced the bond to $100,000, he left the house arrest condition in place. Prosecutors never thought they would need to rely on it until Hammond & Hammond Bail Bondsmen, Inc. of Durham unexpectedly satisfied the bond for Mangum’s release from the Durham Detention Center, where she had been held for three months.

Garcia-Lamarca’s plan was to drag out pretrial events while Ms. Mangum languished in jail for a year or two, then offer her a plea deal in order to get out of jail. She anticipated that public defender Clayton Jones would do his part by persuading Ms. Mangum to accept the deal for “time served” in exchange for pleading guilty to misdemeanor arson… or some charge. The fact is that neither Ms. Garcia-Lamarca or Public Defender Jones planned on this case going to trial because the prosecution had no case. There was no credible evidence. Charges against Ms. Mangum related to the 2010 events of February 17th and 18th were excessive and trumped up… suggesting malfeasance and misdeeds on the part of law enforcement. Therefore, the end-stage of this legal melodrama is, and always has been, a plea deal… with the taste of freedom from behind bars, as opposed to a long and indefinite incarceration, being the surefire incentive.

Leverage of using hard time to force a plea deal was undercut from the prosecution when the $100,000 bail for Ms. Mangum was provided pro bono by the owners of Hammond & Hammond. This was a major blow to Team Garcia-Lamarca as living under house arrest is far more tolerable than the restrictive, punitive, dangerous, and overbearing conditions that exist in jail. Though electronically confined to the house and its porches, Ms. Mangum under house arrest is able to set her own routine, has unlimited and unsupervised contact with family and friends, enjoys the comforts of home and the privacy not available in a correctional facility.

So even though Ms. Mangum is out of jail on $100,000 bond, is no flight risk, and is no danger to society, the prosecutors tightly are grasping to the house arrest… for without it, the prosecutors would have no leverage to pry an acceptance of a plea deal out of her. Zilch. Nada. Therefore, even at a waste of taxpayer money and without justification, the prosecution will fight tooth and nail to see that house arrest is maintained. And, there is always hope that she will take one step too many from the porch or otherwise violate terms of the house arrest, thereby providing grounds for placing her back behind bars. This would also serve as retaliation against the bondsmen for releasing her from jail in the first place.

Prosecutors always felt confident that they could mistreat and abuse Ms. Mangum because the media had so successfully molded the minds of the public against her, as it had against Mike Nifong. They had no reason to believe that the elected officials or politicians would get involved in seeking justice for someone sullied by being on the “wrong end” of the Duke Lacrosse case. And they were right. Durham County representatives Larry Hall, Mickey Michaux, and Paul Luebke, along with Durham County Senator Floyd McKissick Jr., have all refused to write a letter about Ms. Mangum’s selective and unjust treatment. They were willing to allow her to sit in jail for a year or two on obviously trumped up charges, rather than seek justice on behalf of their constituent. But it is not only politicians, but civil rights organizations that have been ignoring Ms. Mangum’s plight. The NAACP, on any level, has kept its distance from Ms. Mangum, abandoning her just like the organization abandoned the wrongfully accused and charged Scottsboro Boys. Other Durham civil rights organizations are idle and silent as well.

The prosecution’s last bastion in securing a plea deal with Ms. Mangum was her court-appointed attorney from the Public Defender’s Office. With state malfeasance and misdeeds involved in the prosecution of Ms. Mangum, Public Defender Clayton Jones is presented with a mammoth conflict of interest, and he has chosen the path that is better for his career than his client. The hearing that was scheduled for Friday, July 2, 2010, was initially planned to pressure Ms. Mangum into accepting a plea offer from the prosecutors wherein she would plea guilty (to a crime she didn’t commit) in exchange for release from house arrest with time served). This, of course, would have accrued to the benefit of the state, not Ms. Mangum. This is what happened with James Arthur Johnson who spent 39 months in jail with prosecutor Bill Wolfe offering plea deals up until the day of the trial, before turning the case over to a special prosecutor. Like the Wolfe prosecution team in the Johnson case, Garcia-Lamarca is unable to take her case to trial because she has no case.

Members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong however, like the Hammonds, unexpectedly became another fly in the ointment. This organization is taking on the fight for justice for Crystal Mangum alone, as politicians, elected officials, media columnists and op-editorialists have opted to remain out of the fray. In most instances, it is the media higher-ups who control the content of what is aired and published, and they are thoroughly indoctrinated by the Carpetbagger Jihad Agenda.

The July 2, 2010 hearing for Ms. Mangum was mysteriously cancelled, as three members of the Committee showed up for court, along with defendant Mangum, only to find that she was not on the day’s docket. According to staff in the Superior Court Clerk’s office, the next scheduled event for Ms. Mangum is a hearing on Wednesday, July 7, 2010. The reason given by Public Defender Jones for the hearing is vague and mysterious. But it is very likely that it has to do with some Hail Mary attempt by the attorneys and all prosecutorial staff involved, to force Ms. Mangum to accept a plea offer… something that is definitely not in her best interests.

Stay tuned.

Crystal Mangum did NOT set clothes in bathtub on fire!

After speaking with Crystal Mangum I learned that on the night of February 17, 2010, she did not set fire to clothes in the bathtub as alleged by the Durham Police Department. Furthermore, she did not know that a fire had been set in her bathtub, and she did not know who was responsible for setting the fire. She also stated that she did not vandalize her ex-boyfriend’s car, as had been alleged in Durham Police Incident/Investigative report, and in the grand jury indictment. Furthermore she stated that she was unaware that her ex’s car had even been vandalized. Regarding the physical altercation with her ex-boyfriend, Ms. Mangum stated that he initiated the fight by punching her in the face, and she fought back in self defense. She never attempted to murder him, or use a lethal weapon against him. In light of her statements about what transpired the night of February 17, 2010, if what Ms. Mangum said is true (and I believe it is), the state’s entire case against her is baseless and without merit… nothing more than a house of cards built with smoke and mirrors on shifting sand… a case that is as flawed, flimsy, and flaky as the North Carolina State Bar’s case against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. I find Crystal’s statements about what happened that night to be far more compelling than those made by authorities because her narrative has a believable timeline with a logical progression of events. Police reports give a report that is vague, sparse on details and substance, disjointed, illogical, and one that essentially defies belief.

When Attorney General Roy Cooper announced on April 11, 2007 that he was dropping all charges in the Duke Lacrosse case, the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants concentrated on exacting payback, beginning with the prosecutor, Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. With the media in cahoots with state agencies, and a pliable public which was readily susceptible to Jedi mind-tricks, Mr. Nifong was disbarred and severely persecuted. In addition to punitive and malicious action taken against Mr. Nifong, two lead investigators in the Duke Lacrosse case were forced to resign, the Durham City Manager was forced to resign, the head of the DNA lab who worked for the prosecution was fired, and the judge hearing the DNA lab director’s wrongful termination law suit threw the case out. Anyone considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the “wrong end” of the Duke Lacrosse case (“wrong-enders”) were targeted for merciless retaliation. After Mr. Nifong, the high valued “wrong-ender” target next in line for the Powers-That-Be was Crystal Mangum, the African American exotic dancer at the Duke LAX Spring Break beer-guzzling stripper party, who made accusations against the three Duke defendants. A fateful 9-1-1 call by the ten year-old daughter of Ms. Mangum out of concern for her mother’s life on the night of February 17, 2010 gave authorities the opening they had been patiently waiting for, and they burst through it like storm troopers.

Ms. Mangum did not have to break any laws or commit a crime to unleash the unspeakable havoc that would be heaped on her. All that was required was for her to merely initiate contact, no matter how innocent or tangential, with the Durham law enforcement, such as the 9-1-1 call. The plan was straight forward, and was comprised of the following steps: (1) Charge Mangum with many charges and serious charges at the time of her arrest; (2) obtain a high bail (based on those charges) that she would be unable to meet; (3) hold her in jail pre-trial while the prosecution, which determines the pace of court action, moves at glacial speed – she was now serving her sentence as punishment for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case (Note: Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe dragged his feet and stretched James Arthur Johnson’s pre-trial period of incarceration to 39 months before the trial date finally arrived, at which time the prosecution called for a special prosecutor to take over after last minute plea bargains with Mr. Johnson failed.); (4) after serving a long indeterminate sentence behind bars, Ms. Mangum would be expected to jump at the chance to take a plea deal just in order to be released from confinement; (5) after Mangum had served a sufficient sentence behind bars, the prosecution would offer a plea deal that would free her based on time served in exchange for pleading guilty to some charge; and (6) the prosecution would have prevailed without going to trial and Ms. Mangum would have served her sentence for offenses in the Duke Lacrosse case.

This was how things were supposed to happen. Crystal Mangum, who did nothing more than involuntarily allow her face to be used as a punching bag by her ex-boyfriend, was to serve several years in prison while awaiting trial, then she was to be released on a plea deal with a criminal record for misdemeanor arson, and, if the prosecution could swing it, have her placed on probation too.

Shortly after her February 17, 2010 arrest, the prosecution, headed by Angela Garcia-Lamarca, offered the following plea deal to Ms. Mangum: plead guilty as charged and serve a sentence of two years in prison. Her public defender attorney warned Mangum that if she turned down the offer and opted to go to trial, and if the prosecution successfully had her convicted of felony first degree arson, she could possibly face a six year sentence. Ms. Mangum refused this plea offer and languished in jail for three months until fate intervened in the form of two benevolent and generous bondsmen. The Carpetbagger Jihad plan had proceeded as intended until the owners of Hammond & Hammond Bailbondsmen, Inc. unexpectedly satisfied the $100,000 bond requirement for Ms. Mangum’s release from the Durham Detention Center. However, as a safeguard against such an unexpected event, Judge Claude Allen had set a condition for Ms. Mangum that if she was able to bond out, she would be required to be placed under house arrest. The move from the detention center to house arrest was not only significant because Ms. Mangum was no longer subjected to the oppressive conditions related with being behind bars, but because the prosecution lost its greatest bargaining chip. As a jail inmate, Ms. Mangum would have been more willing to accept harsher terms of a plea offer in order to taste freedom. With comforts of home confinement she was in better position to dictate terms for a plea deal that she would find more to her liking, or have the option of waiting to go to trial. Approximately one month into house arrest, the prosecution proposed to Ms. Mangum a second plea deal: plead guilty to misdemeanor arson and serve three additional months under house arrest along with credit for time served for the three months already spent in jail, and be placed on three years probation. Again, Ms. Mangum declined this offer by the prosecution.

The greatest advantage to Ms. Mangum of being placed under house arrest was that she was no longer inaccessible. Friends and family and supporters were able to visit her without time constraints or supervision. It was during such a visit that I met Ms. Mangum and she told me, face to face, what transpired in the late hours of February 17th and early hours of the 18th with respect to her interaction with her ex-boyfriend and authorities. I found her narrative of events to be consistent, cogent, credible, and compatible with the timeline… and her story, as told to me, follows.

On February 17, 2010, Crystal Mangum, single mother of three children aged 11, 10, and 3 years, had custody of her children who lived with her in a rented apartment. Moving forward with her life after Duke Lacrosse, she was gainfully employed and self-sufficient, and had recently taken out a $6,000 loan to pay for tuition, books, and supplies for grad school (she was enrolled at North Carolina Central University where she was pursuing a Masters degree in clinical psychology).

She had been intermittently in a relationship with Milton Walker over a 17 year period, and he currently had been dividing time staying with Ms. Mangum and at his parents’ house, also located in Durham. During the evening of February 17th an argument ensued when Ms. Mangum related to Mr. Walker that she wanted to terminate their relationship, and that she wanted him to move, with his belongings, from her apartment. At about 11:15 pm, the argument turned violent after Ms. Mangum made a statement to which Walker took offense. He responded by grabbing Crystal and punching her in the face several times. Mangum’s ten year-old daughter immediately went to the phone and made a frantic call to 9-1-1, requesting help and stating that if help did not arrive soon, her mother might be killed.

Ms. Mangum extricated herself from her ex-boyfriend’s grasp and attempted to escape. He was in pursuit. She picked up a chair, and hit him with it in self-defense. Intermittently during the next twenty minutes or so, the two scuffled, wrestled, and exchanged punches. She then went into an unoccupied bedroom and closed the door behind her. After approximately five minutes in the room she emerged, whereupon she found two police officers (Tyler and Thompson) entering the premises.

Acutely aware of her infamous Duke Lacrosse past, Ms. Mangum began talking to the two officers, trying to mollify the situation because she dreaded police involvement and its implications with regards to media, etc.

Shortly after Mangum engaged the two officers, two additional officers entered the house with a handcuffed Mr. Walker between them. The sight of Walker triggered a fit of hysteria during which Mangum screamed at him. She doesn’t deny that she might have said something to the effect that she was going to stab him, but she did not have a knife and was definitely not armed when yelling. In other words, there was no imminent danger that she could or would carry out the threat. Officer Tyler then forced Ms. Mangum to the floor and handcuffed her. Mangum had been assured that she was not under arrest, but that she was being restrained until things could be sorted out.

Shortly thereafter, Officer Tyler stated aloud that he smelled smoke, at which point Officer Thompson began to lead Crystal out of the house. Mangum heard Officer Tyler go to the bathroom and kick in the bathroom door (Note: the bathroom door had been closed since before the officers arrived). Crystal was hesitant, not wanting to leave her children in the house if there was danger. Officer Thompson assured Mangum that her children would be removed from the house, as well. Shortly thereafter, Crystal’s three children and Walker joined her outside of the house. Officer Thompson placed Crystal in the backseat of the patrol car. The officers congregated around Mr. Walker and were talking to him, but none of the officers came to Crystal to get a statement from her about what had transpired.

After a period of time has passed, fire trucks begin arriving. Ms. Mangum does not recall seeing a fire hose being taken into the building by the firefighters. Eventually one of the firemen approached the patrol car and asked Crystal if she started the fire. Crystal denied setting the fire or knowing anything about the fire.

When she noticed that Mr. Walker had been freed of his manacles, she anticipated that she would be removed from the handcuffs as well, and asked Officer Tyler when he was going to take off the cuffs. He replied that she was going to jail and slammed the car door shut.

While being driven to jail, Ms. Mangum was still unaware of the gravity of the situation that faced her. In her assessment of the situation, she had definitely not attempted to kill Mr. Walker, she was the true victim of the assault, she did not initiate the fight, the 9-1-1 call was made with her welfare in mind, her physical actions were in self-defense, she did not set fire to clothes in the bathroom’s bathtub, she did not take clothes into the bathroom, she knew nothing about the fire in the bathroom, she did not vandalize a car, she did not know if her ex-boyfriend’s car had been vandalized, and she was cooperative with the authorities and offered no resistance to them. When Ms. Mangum heard the charges against her that were read later, she was totally flabbergasted.

Meanwhile, the biased mainstream media, including Newsweek magazine wrote stories about how Ms. Mangum was arrested for attempted first degree murder and for committing first degree arson (defined as: setting an occupied building or structure on fire). The media articles related how Ms. Mangum allegedly punched, scratched, and threw objects at Mr. Walker, but there was no mention that Mr. Walker initiated the altercation by punching Crystal in the face. Nor was there any mention about any prior charges of domestic abuse attributed to Mr.Walker, which I have been told included an ex-wife of Walker being punched in the face. Ms. Mangum stated that after being taken to the police station, photographs were taken of her bruised face, but not one of them was published or aired by the media.

The media, in general, stayed away from the car vandalism issue. In only one article could I even find any mention of damage to a car. Keith Upchurch, writer for The Herald-Sun newspaper, seemed to confirm that a car had been vandalized when he wrote that an empty black Lincoln with a shattered windshield and four flat tires was sitting in the driveway of Crystal’s apartment on the afternoon of February 18, 2010. (Police reports, however, described Milton Walker’s car as being a blue Oldsmobile Park Avenue.) When asked to see the Herald-Sun’s photographs of the vandalized car, Mr. Upchurch replied that no photographs had been taken.

Neither politicians nor civil rights organizations, such as the NAACP, came to the defense of Crystal Mangum. No one extended support or expressed outrage at Ms. Mangum’s treatment except for members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong. Committee members wrote Ms. Mangum letters of support while she was held in the detention center, and made donations to her during her incarceration. Committee members wrote letters to judges, prosecutors, politicians, and others seeking dismissal of the charges and her release from custody. Committee members held a pray vigil for Ms. Mangum on May 15, 2010, in Durham. Committee member Vincent Edward Clark tried to raise money for Ms. Mangum’s bond, and upon reading about it in The Herald-Sun, Mr. and Mrs. Lonnie Hammond, owners of Hammond & Hammond Bail Bondsman, Inc., made an impressive humanitarian gesture by putting up bond for Ms. Mangum pro bono. Since being released from jail, though still under house arrest, Ms. Mangum has been able to tell, firsthand, what happened the night of February 17, 2010. The aforementioned, according to Ms. Mangum, is what transpired, and it is believable, especially when considering the story pieced together by police and fire reports and media articles.

The piecemeal story offered by the authorities and media is as follows. Though no time was given for receipt of the 9-1-1 call placed by Mangum’s daughter, the police arrived before midnight on February 17, 2010. There was no documentation that I could find that stated that officers witnessed any physical altercation between Ms. Mangum and Mr. Walker. There was no documentation to support the claim by police that Ms. Mangum attempted to kill Mr. Walker. When officers brought Milton Walker into the house where Ms. Mangum was talking with Officers Tyler and Thompson, Ms. Mangum exploded into a tirade during which she is alleged to have stated, “I’m going to stab you, M-F.” There is no report that Ms. Mangum was armed when she made the statement. At this point, Mangum was apparently forced to the floor and handcuffed, the time of arrest recorded at 11:55 pm of February 17, 2010. It is unclear as to what time Officer Tyler allegedly saw Ms. Mangum put clothes in the bathroom, but he allegedly discovered the fire in the bathroom’s bathtub around 12:08 am, and placed a call at that time to the Durham Fire Department. At 12:09 am, nearly fourteen minutes after Ms. Mangum was arrested, the Durham Fire Department received the alarm, in which the police officer falsely indicated a structure fire was in progress with a subject trapped. What happened during the fourteen minutes from the time Ms. Mangum was handcuffed until Officer Tyler discovered the fire in the bathtub is a mystery for which there has been no accounting.

At approximately 12:15 am, six minutes after the alarm was sounded, the fire units arrived at Crystal’s apartment. There was no mention of what, if any, measures were taken by police to extinguish the burning clothes in the bathtub since the fire was allegedly discovered six minutes earlier. For example, there was no mention that the police officers turned on the bathtub faucets, which most people would consider a prudent course of action. On arrival firemen found the bathroom door closed, and upon opening it, observed that a fire was still visible in the bathtub. The estimated number of articles of clothing burned is never given, although a Herald-Sun article wrote, “They (Durham police) said she filled a bathtub with clothes and set them on fire.” Never in the fire report is there any mention of flame damage to the structure, only smoke damage. The only things burned by flames were apparently clothes. No reports contained any mention of what articles of clothing were burned, or whether or not only articles that belonged to Walker were burned. Because of extensive smoke damage in the bathroom, the firemen probably felt compelled to pull down the ceiling to rule out possible extension of the fire there; an action which accounted for the substantial amount of building damage resulting from this incident.

The authority’s version of events lacks credibility because it is vague, nonspecific, and illogical. Reasons for the charge of attempted first degree murder are never substantiated, use of the felony first degree arson charge is inaccurate and misleading because a structure was not burned, and it is unreasonable to believe that it was the intention of the fire-starter to burn anything other than the clothes in the bathtub. The identity theft charge lodged against Ms. Mangum was ludicrous, as were the three counts of child abuse. The charge of injury to personal property was never appropriately documented or justified. Ms. Mangum was designated by police as the offender in the domestic dispute without them even taking a statement from her. The most cursory look at this case brings up questions of misconduct and bias on the part of state authorities in prosecuting Ms. Mangum in what would appear to the objective and casual observer to be nothing more than payback for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case.

Unable to afford an attorney, Ms. Mangum is being represented by an attorney from Durham’s Public Defender Office. The public defender is an employee of the state, and it is the state which pays his salary and is responsible for his advancement in the ranks, or lack thereof. When issues of misconduct and malfeasance by state officials and/or governmental agencies occur against a defendant, a public defender is automatically placed in a compromised position with an inherent conflict of interest. As Mark Twain once said, “Show me a good loser, and I’ll show you a man playing golf with his boss.” Crystal Mangum’s public defender is, in essence, playing golf with his boss. For him to aggressively and appropriately defend his client, would require exposing government officers and agents of misdeeds. For him to successfully defend his client would not be beneficial to his career, and could very well be detrimental to it. There is a definite conflict of interest issue with the flawed vendetta case against Ms. Mangum. To best serve his interests, he is under pressure to work with the prosecutor and try and persuade Ms. Mangum to accept a plea deal… any deal as long as she pleads guilty to a charge that would take the state off the hook for a possible civil suit filed by Ms. Mangum. She’s holding a royal flush, and the public defender’s goal is to persuade her to fold.

This vendetta payback case against Ms. Mangum was a plea deal case from the onset, as Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca had no intention of prosecuting the case in court because she had no case. The prosecutor was relying on the public defender to help get the defendant to accept a plea deal. However, much leverage was lost by the prosecution when angelic bail bondsmen appeared unexpectedly and bonded Ms. Mangum from the detention center.

So, regarding the most serious of the charges for which Ms. Mangum is currently under house arrest, felony first degree arson, the prosecution has not made its case. It lacks credible evidence. All charges against Crystal Mangum should be immediately dismissed and she should be released from custody, period.

Million dollar bail… a case comparison – Part 9

On or about April 7, 2010, in Elizabeth City, NC, six men were arrested for the brutal beating of Travis Howard. Heavily outnumbered in what he stated was an unprovoked attack at a nightclub, Mr. Howard sustained four skull fractures in the incident. In addition, he stated that he suffered a broken nose, concussion, and sprained neck. Five of his attackers were Special Forces soldiers who were in the area for training exercises in Camden County. The sixth man is listed as a resident from Jacksonville, FL, although the media reports are conflicting and uncertain as to his military status. All six were charged with felony assault inflicting serious bodily injury, but none were charged with attempted first degree murder. All six men were released without bond after promising in writing that they would be in attendance for their scheduled July 12, 2010 court event.

More recently, Gregory Boykin, a 29 year-old Wake County resident was arrested and charged with raping a 6 year-old girl. He faces charges of first degree rape of a child and three counts of felony sex offense with a child for offenses which allegedly took place in May 2009. Initially bail was set for Mr. Boykin in the amount of $500,000 with a condition that if he made bond he would be placed on electronic house arrest. However, on June 11, 2010, Wake District Court Judge Jennifer Knox reduced his bail to $300,000 and ruled that he would not be confined to house arrest if he bonded out of jail while awaiting trial. Currently, he remains in jail.

Parents of a five month-old boy were arrested in May 2010 and charged with child abuse. The infant sustained fractures of the skull, rib, and arm from an incident that, according to court documents, occurred several months earlier. Neither of the parents was charged with attempted first degree murder, and they were placed in custody under $100,000 bail.

Three cases cited above are for comparison with Crystal Mangum’s case. They illustrate the disparity and severity of the treatment to which Ms. Mangum has been subjected since her arrest on February 17, 2010.

Crystal Mangum did not inflict serious injury in her dispute with her ex-boyfriend on the night of February 17, 2010. According to police reports, she allegedly scratched him and threw punches at him. Yet, she was accused of attempted first degree murder (when no weapon was involved), and held under a $1 million bail. However five of the six member mob who attacked Travis Howard were highly skilled fighters from the Special Forces of the Army. Although they savagely beat Mr. Howard, they were released without bail.

Bail is a legal tool used to assure that a suspect who is released from custody prior to trial is in attendance at trial. Large sums of money or secured property are used as incentives to assure the suspect complies with the court calendar and mandates. In most cases, the higher the bond, the greater the flight risk of the suspect/defendant. In the case of Gregory Boykin, the judge or magistrate who set the initial bail of $500,000 made a condition similar to that imposed by Judge Claude Allen in Crystal Mangum’s case. The condition being that if bonded out, he/she would be released from jail, but be placed under monitored house arrest. In other words, after paying bond, they would still be in custody. Judge Jennifer Knox, when she reduced Mr. Boykin’s bail to $300,000, removed the condition that if he bonded out he would be under house arrest. In other words, she overruled the condition previously imposed. Judge Paul Ridgeway, when he reduced Ms. Mangum’s bail, had the opportunity to rescind the house arrest condition regarding bond, but he chose not to use it. So after Ms. Mangum’s $100,000 bond was satisfied, she was still in custody… under electronic monitored house arrest.

Undoubtedly, Judge Knox ruled properly when she removed the house arrest condition for pre-trial release of the defendant from custody. In this same respect, Judge Paul Ridgeway erred. The bail was placed to assure that Ms. Mangum would attend court dates if released from custody. She unexpectedly satisfied the bond requirements (thanks to the benevolent and generous actions of Mr. and Mrs. Hammond) and she should be free, instead of still being held in custody… albeit in a residential setting instead of the Durham County Detention Center. Judge Allen’s condition for bond for Ms. Mangum flies in the face of the true meaning of for having bail. His actions constitute a tiered level of confinement which is unevenly, unjustly, and often inappropriately applied. Ms. Mangum, for example, does not represent a flight risk. She’s a Durham resident, does not have the financial wherewithal to leave the state, country… much less, city of Durham. Her dedication as a mother is unquestioned, and therefore it is unlikely that she would take flight and leave her children behind. In addition, the crime for which she is alleged to have committed is bogus, and would not withstand a courtroom trial. The prosecution doesn’t even plan to go to trial because it knows it has no case against Ms. Mangum… their strategy is to strong-arm her into a plea deal on a so-called lesser charge in exchange for time served (strategy effectively used in the James Arthur Johnson case).

Although house arrest is not as oppressive as incarceration behind bars, it still represents a significant impediment to living a normal life. Prior to her arrest, Ms. Mangum was enrolled in graduate school pursuing a Masters degree, while being gainfully employed, and raising three children. Since being placed under house arrest, these activities have been put on hold, at taxpayer expense. Electronic monitoring, supervised leave to run errands, and associated paperwork come with a price tag that is being paid by the state.

It was an outrage for Magistrate B. Wakil to initially attach a $1 million bail with the arrest of Ms. Mangum, and it is a further outrage for her to be subjected to house arrest after she bonded out of the $100,000 bail. A comparison of cases will clearly show the discrepancies in the way punishment is selectively meted out by the North Carolina courts… and this is the biggest outrage of all.

When it comes to injustice, Duke LAX case doesn’t even merit mention

In yesterday’s issue of the News & Observer, an article by staff writer Mandy Locke titled “Former Dix inmate sues SBI agents” tries to dredge up sympathy for the Duke Lacrosse defendants by making a comparison with the injustice Floyd Brown sustained. In what is essentially media blasphemy, she stretches to make a connection between the situations faced by Floyd Brown and the three Duke Lacrosse defendants. Floyd Brown is a mentally retarded man who was held for fourteen years without a trial by Anson County District Attorney Michael D. Parker. Per its customary PAPEN Policy (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong), the prosecutor’s name is never mentioned in the article. Mr. Brown was finally released from custody when a judge from outside of Anson County ruled that he was being held unlawfully. There was no “credible evidence” or any evidence linking Brown to a murder for which he was charged, but never tried. Brown’s fourteen years of confinement were made harder by Parker’s refusal of the staff’s request to allow Brown to have lunch with family, or a day trip to the fair. And after Brown was released, with arrangements made by state social workers for his placement in an assisted living facility, a vindictive Parker went out of his way to disrupt Brown’s disposition. Further arrangements for housing for Brown were made secretly to prevent the D.A. from continuing to maliciously interfere with housing plans. In addition, the charge against Brown by D.A. Parker was based solely on a written confession attributed to Brown that experts claimed he was too retarded to have made.

Contrast Floyd Brown’s situation with the three Duke Lacrosse defendants who did not spend one day in jail, received $7 million each in an out-of-court settlement with Duke University, enjoyed the benefit of being proclaimed “innocent” by Attorney General Roy Cooper during his April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation,” were coddled by the biased media, and are suing the cash-strapped city of Durham for an additional $10 million each… in the words of their attorney “so nothing like this ever happens to anyone else.” Yet, they are claiming that they were denied due process. How? This claim is obviously a bluff, and the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their greedy attorneys were expecting the city to roll over just like Duke University. They have no intention of carrying out this lawsuit because they have no case.

The media should be ashamed to even mention the Duke Lacrosse case when it comes to injustice, especially with innocents such as Alan Gell who was falsely convicted of capital murder by Prosecutor David Hoke, and Darryl Hunt in Winston-Salem. These men mentioned in the article, along with others such as Erick Daniels, Gregory Taylor, and James Arthur Johnson are some of the true victims of North Carolina’s justice system, and they have all served excessively long unjust incarceration on convictions made without credible evidence.

One of the most recent victims of injustice is Crystal Mangum, the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case. Durham Prosecutor Angela Garcia-Lamarca is trying to do her best to get a plea deal with Ms. Mangum, now that she is under electronic house arrest and not in an oppressive jail cell. Initially the prosecutor tried to have Ms. Mangum plead guilty to the arson charge and serve a two year jail sentence… as though that was a really great offer. The problem is that the prosecutors have no case against Ms. Mangum, and they know that they would be thoroughly embarrassed if they took their case to court. No credible evidence… nothing. The Mangum prosecution’s position is similar to that of Prosecutor Bill Wolfe’s in the James Arthur Johnson case, in which, to the relief of the prosecution, Johnson accepted an Alford plea on a flimsy charge to avoid the possibility of being returned to jail. The Mangum prosecution’s retaliatory motivation is similar to that of Alan Gell who currently in prison for charges brought as a vendetta against him after he filed lawsuits and complaints for his earlier false murder conviction. Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca, Judges Claude Allen and Paul Ridgeway, and the Durham Police and Fire departments, along with the media, are all focused on punishing Crystal Mangum for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. The charges for which she was arrested on February 17, 2010 were merely a means of imposing an indefinite sentence on Ms. Mangum without her being convicted of a crime.

Some media outlets have attempted to mitigate the suffering of Ms. Mangum by falsely reporting, shortly after her arrest, that she was under house arrest on a $250,000 bail. NBC-17 and Newsweek magazine both made the false claims although Ms. Mangum actually spent approximately 90 days at the Durham Detention Center, and is currently under house arrest after the posting of bond. Almost without exception, however, the media goes out of its way to give the Duke Lacrosse players (who attended the beer-guzzling stripper party with under-aged drinking and racial epithets) a positive and sympathetic look. But there is no way that Duke Lacrosse defendants comes close to enduring the hardship and suffering of Floyd Brown, Alan Gell, Crystal Mangum, and others.

However, what I don’t understand is why Floyd Brown’s attorneys are going after the investigators. Surely the SBI agents and sheriff’s deputies acted no more deliberately and in bad faith than lead prosecutor Michael Parker. It was Prosecutor Parker who was responsible for Floyd Brown being unlawfully held fourteen years, not the investigators. Maybe Brown’s attorneys are extending a professional courtesy to Prosecutor Parker by not filing a law suit against him. But, then, the North Carolina State Bar did not even feel motivated enough by the injustice against Brown to initiate its own complaint against Michael Parker. Whereas in the Duke Lacrosse case, the State Bar was quick to lob an ethics complaint against the Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong in order to force him off the case as the prosecutor.

Bottom line is that Floyd Brown deserves compensation for the atrocious injustices he suffered at the hands of Anson County Prosecutor Michael Parker… the defendants in the Duke Lacrosse case, on the other hand, do not even deserve mention.

Mangum prosecutors’ strategy is as clear as crystal

I have long maintained that the Durham prosecutorial strategy related to Crystal Mangum was one in which Prosecutor Angela Garcia-Lamarca would move the Mangum case along through the courts at glacial speed, to assure that Ms. Mangum would spend a significant time behind bars to satisfy the “unofficial” sentence imposed by the Powers-That-Be for committing the “unofficial” crime of accusing three Duke Lacrosse defendants of sexually assaulting her during their infamous March 2006 Spring Break beer-guzzling stripper party. Additional perks to the lengthy malicious retaliatory sentence would be to saddle Ms. Mangum with a significant criminal record, disrupt her life by interfering with her employment and academic pursuits, and to help see to it that social services have grounds to remove her three children from her custody.

This stratagem of having Ms. Mangum carry out her sentence without being convicted of a crime is obviously apparent due to the excessively high $1 million bail set initially for Ms. Mangum by Magistrate B. Wakil. The excessive bail was made palatable by the Durham Police charging her on arrest with bogus charges such as the following which include: (1) felony attempted first degree murder; (2) assault and battery; (3) felony identity theft; and (4) communicating threats. Prosecutors never had the intention of pursuing these charges as they were used only to attain a high bail – which they successfully accomplished. These charges were never even brought before the grand jury when the indictments related to events of February 17, 2010 were sought six and a half weeks later.

Judge Claude Allen could not justify the million dollar bail imposed by the magistrate (especially after the five counts of felony first degree arson were whittled to one), and he reduced her bail to $250,000… still an extremely high bail under the circumstances, and an amount which he believed would be safely out of reach for Ms. Mangum, her family or her supporters. But to insure that she remained in custody in order to serve her indeterminate “sentence,” the crafty judge made a condition that in the event that she was to make bond, that she would then be placed under house arrest. (In my opinion, this was part of the plan worked out in conjunction with the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda, and Judge Allen was merely playing his role. For example, it is my belief that this condition for bail has never been imposed by Judge Allen in the past… and is so illogical a condition that it has rarely, if ever, been imposed by any North Carolina judge, period.)

Although Judge Paul Ridgeway later reduced the bail to $100,000, he left intact Judge Allen’s condition that if the bond was satisfied, that Mangum would be released from jail to house arrest. It seems that Judge Ridgeway was on board with the ruse to circumvent obtaining a conviction before having Ms. Mangum serve a sentence. In other words, he went along with the “cart before the horse” plan to have Ms. Mangum serve her sentence without being convicted of a crime.

The early indication that the charges against Ms. Mangum were baseless is the fact that Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca sought to have the charges entered in the secrecy of a grand jury indictment, rather than in open court, as initially scheduled. On Monday, April 5, 2010, when the hearing was to take place in the open Durham courtroom, Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca feigned illness and did not show up, only later that day to have the charges against Ms. Mangum brought forth in a grand jury indictment behind closed doors. The charges leveled against Ms. Mangum were pitiful, to say the least. Felony first degree arson was based on Ms. Mangum’s actions of burning a few articles of clothing belonging to her ex-boyfriend. By definition, burning clothes, whether in a bathtub, in a fireplace, or in an oven, does not satisfy the definition of “arson” and this charge is undoubtedly baseless. This is the kind of action by prosecutors that makes North Carolina justice a laughing stock of the nation. The three charges of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile are tortuously linked to the merit-less arson charge and therefore should be summarily discarded, too.

The injury to personal property is particularly troublesome in that the police reports and prosecutor notes used in the grand jury indictment refer to nonspecific vandalism to a car’s windshield and tires. Except for one vague reference in the media, this vandalism that is attributed to Ms. Mangum is never mentioned in the news coverage. Its legitimacy is immediately brought into question, and leads an objective observer to believe that it was added by police to bring the amount of personal property damage to a figure greater than $200. Without doubt, the dollar amount of the burnt clothing in the bathtub amounted to less than $200. Had Ms. Mangum truly been responsible for causing damage to her ex-boyfriend’s car, it is a safe bet that she would have been charged with vandalism, as well.

Finally, the charge of obstructing a public official’s investigation into the domestic dispute by giving a false name is totally ludicrous. The police officers knew her identity before they asked for her identity. Had they been unaware of her true identity, Ms. Mangum would never have been arrested, no charges would have been brought against her, and her ex-boyfriend, if anyone, would have been the one taken into custody.

The above explains in detail why Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca has no case against Crystal Mangum, and why all charges against her should be immediately dismissed and why Ms. Mangum should be released from custody.

Now some blog commenters have questioned how do I know what the prosecution strategy is and do I have proof to back up my statements about its future plans in this case. I have not had the privilege of sitting in on the prosecutors’ strategy sessions and have no incriminating e-mails or other documents in my possession. What I do have, however, is common sense, and a history of what has taken place in the North Carolina justice system in the past… especially the James Arthur Johnson case. The following are obvious:
(1) the prosecution has no case against Ms. Mangum. In poker it would be the equivalent of the state having a worthless hand and Ms. Mangum holding a full house, or better. The prosecution knows that it cannot win based on the merits of the case, alone;
(2) instead of dismissing the charges and releasing Ms. Mangum from custody, the state bluffs with its losing hand, and continues to prosecute;
(3) the prosecution hopes that the Ms. Mangum, with her full house, will fold by accepting a plea deal… and they are counting on the public defender’s office to help convince Ms. Mangum to accept the deal… a deal in which she will plead guilty to some kind of charge and be sentenced to time served.

This is the way the scenario basically played out in the James Arthur Johnson case, and this is the direction that this case is assuredly taking. It doesn’t take a crystal ball to see with crystal clarity the prosecution’s plans for working the case against Crystal Mangum. It’s no mystery, in fact, it is all very elementary.

The tandem bails of Crystal Mangum should be illegal

The lunacy of events which mark the travesty of justice against Duke Lacrosse accuser Crystal Mangum is highlighted by the unique tandem bail scenario which engulfs her. Bail is supposed to be a fiduciary means to insure that a suspect attends future court hearings on charges against him/her while being temporarily free pending a final verdict. In Ms. Mangum’s case, Judge Claude Allen ruled, as a condition of being released from the Durham County Detention Center on bond, that Ms. Mangum be placed under house arrest. This is unheard of! In other words, Judge Allen, when he reduced Ms. Mangum’s bail from one million dollars to $250,000, stated that in the event Ms. Mangum was to satisfy the bail, she would be released from jail, but still be placed under house arrest… she would still be in custody. This begs the question, should her attorney seek a bail hearing for her custody under house arrest, or is a second bail automatically denied? These are undoubtedly untested and troubling waters as nothing this ridiculous has ever been tried before. In the attempt to comply with the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda of inflicting as much suffering as possible on Ms. Mangum, Judge Allen stepped beyond the bounds of legality, decency, objectivity, and reason when he made the singular ruling pertaining to Ms. Mangum’s ability to satisfy her initial bail. Subsequent Judge Paul Ridgeway did not deem it necessary to correct this judicial blunder by his colleague, Allen.

The reason Judge Allen imposed the tandem bail condition against Ms. Mangum was to assure that she would remain in custody after the bail was lowered to $250,000. With the prosecutor’s inability to pursue the attempted first degree murder charge and other heaped-on charges against Ms. Mangum with a straight face, the million dollar bail had to be reduced, but the courts kept it high, with the intention that she would be unable to afford bond. Totally unsuspected by the prosecutors and courts was the thought that bail bondsmen would emerge like angels from the heavens and satisfy Ms. Mangum’s $100,000 bail pro bono… but that’s exactly what happened. The benevolent and generous owners of Hammond & Hammond Bailbondsmen, Inc., Mr. and Mrs. Lonnie Hammond made bond for Ms. Mangum, free of charge, after they became aware of Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong member Ed Clark’s attempt to raise funds to pay a bail bondsmen. Thanks to their humanitarian efforts, Crystal Mangum is no longer holed up in the detention center, but she is far from being free… she remains in custody at home under electronic monitoring. One hurdle has been cleared with her release from jail, but another has materialized in the form of house arrest… a second obstacle to her freedom and something which should not exist.

Judge Allen’s imposition of the backup house arrest scheme, gives credence to the premise that Ms. Mangum’s high bail, coupled with the molasses-like movement of the prosecution, is nothing more than a way to skirt the law by forcing Mangum to serve a sentence without being convicted of a crime. And the crime for which she is serving her current sentence has nothing to do with the charges for which she has been arrested… she is serving time for having the gall to accuse three Duke lacrosse boys (from families of wealth, status, and privilege) of sexually assaulting her.

The charges against Ms. Mangum are as flimsy and flaky as those conjured up by the North Carolina State Bar against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong in his disbarment hearing. In pursuing these unjustified charges in order to make Ms. Mangum serve an indeterminate sentence without being first convicted of a crime, the state’s police department, fire department, prosecutors and courts make themselves a laughing stock in the following ways: (1) the Durham Police Department for excessively charging and overcharging Ms. Mangum; (2) the Durham Police for allowing the burning clothes in the bathtub to cause smoke damage to the apartment, and calling the fire department instead of just turning on the faucet to put out the fire; (3) the Durham Fire Department for lugging a fire hose to the bathroom to extinguish the fire instead of turning on the faucet; (4) the questionable validity of vandalism charges to an automobile which was used by prosecutors to help secure a grand jury indictment for an injury to personal property charge; (5) the excessive bail set by Magistrate B. Wakil of $1 million; and (6) the attempt to make a case for first degree arson out of carefully executed controlled burn of clothing articles in a bathtub with running water readily available.

The charges currently pending against Mangum are so ridiculous that Prosecutor Angela Garcia-Lamarca has no intention of going to court to prosecute them. Her plan is to work with the public defender representing Ms. Mangum to accept a plea deal to a “lesser charge” in exchange for time served… and it is anybody’s guess how long the amount of time served by Ms. Mangum will be. Since the prosecution controls the docket, it may last for years. That is what happened in the James Arthur Johnson case, where Johnson was held for 39 months without a trial. In that case, prosecutor Bill Wolfe repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to get Johnson to accept a plea deal, and when it came time for the trial to take place, Wilson District Attorney Howard S. Boney Jr. called for a special prosecutor (using the pretext of wanting Johnson to have a fair trial… the fact being that he had no case against Johnson).

The best course for prosecutors to follow in the fiasco surrounding Ms. Mangum’s arrest is to immediately dismiss all charges against Crystal Mangum, and close the file. Not to do so is a slap in the face of Lady Justice at taxpayer expense. Police, prosecutors and the courts should treat all suspects fairly and equally in order to serve all the people in North Carolina… they should not apply justice disparately to suspects and defendants in order to satisfy the demands of a few well-heeled privileged. To do so these public servants, prosecutors, and judges make a mockery of the state’s system of justice, and make the state’s justice system the laughing stock of the nation.