The Pernicious Effects Of Power

In our system of "justice" judges have an extreme amount of power vested in their persons and in their role as judges.  The wisdom of vesting so much power in any given individual is a matter for future debate.  For the moment I will simply address the ways in which that power can, and often is, misused and abused.

In the case of the State of North Carolina vs Crystal Mangum Judge Abraham Jones proved himself to be an able jurist in many respects.  He seemed at ease in his position most of the time and he presided over an orderly trial.  This article, however, is not about his strengths, but about my perception of his shortcomings as far as I observed them in that trial.  

Go down to the Durham County Courthouse, the Wake County Courthouse, in fact, go down to any courthouse in any county in this state or in the entire country and you will find that the majority of people who are there to be dealt with by the justice system are black and/or hispanic.  This is NO ACCIDENT.  Nor is it a function of some genetic predisposition of these groups toward lawlessness.  Poverty among these groups is an important but not a deciding factor for why they are so grossly over represented in court caseloads and the national jail and prison populations..  The deciding factors are the criminalization of poverty, the nature of police work (including the so-called War On Drugs), the built in "prejudices" of the courts.

The combination of these forces have brought about a state of affairs in this country where the prisons are full to overflowing and the Prison Industrial Complex has become an economic engine for many struggling communities. This economic interest colors and reinforces the other factors in a self perpetuating cycle. 

Judge Abraham Jones plays his part in this cycle by his insistence that the police can do no wrong.  Throughout Ms. Mangum's trial Judge Jones clearly and without hesitation reiterated his belief that the police are to be trusted as faithful civil servants and that their word is not to be questioned.  This attitude was so extreme that he instructed the defense that the police were not to "be put on trial" in this case.  At every turn the judge favored the police  and made rulings that favored and bolstered the prosecution's case.  Since the prosecution provided no evidence other than the testimony of two police officers the favoring took the form of not allowing the testimony of the police to be impeached in any way, shape or form.  This amounted to a de facto  alliance between the court, the police, and the prosecution.

The danger in this reality is that those least able to protect themselves from the predations of the police are the very same people who end up filling the ever expanding prison system.  The hurdles that must be overcome by persons of modest means are far too high.  Good lawyers cost money and the expenses of fighting charges are onerous when one is working two or three minimum wage jobs. 

Judge Jones, by allying himself with the prosecution viciate's a defendant's presumption of innocence.  This in turn further weights the scales of justice against the accused and, in essence, makes a mockery of our justice system.  Conditions such as these are exactly what we condemn in "third world" countries who have "not yet developed a mature judiciary".  

Anonymous Has A Sense Of Humor

Thanks for the comment "Anonymous".  Again, it brightened my day.

Steven Matherly

PS: He has my phone number so he would have called or at lease left his real email.  

At Last A Verdict & Other Drama!

For those of you who haven't already heard the news the jury came back with a split vote.   That means a "hung jury".  That means that Crystal is assumed innocent of the charge of 1st Degree Arson only.  They found Crystal guilty of the lesser charges of: 3 counts of abuse of a minor, resisting arrest, and damage to property (the damage to Milton's car).  I'll have much to say about these verdicts coming up.  

You may have also heard that Jackie Wagstaff, a good friend and colleague of mine, is in the Durham County Jail for "Contempt".  

I think we all know who, for the most part reads Democracy Durham.  The few of you who have open minds and visit this blog to learn something and/or engage in reasonable conversation on issues about which reasonable people might disagree I welcome you and thank you for visiting and for your comments.  However, I think it is safe to say that the majority of you check out this blog so you can feed your salacious appetites for all things Crystal and as an outlet for unreasoned and bigoted commentary on the important issues this case raises.  These same readers are, if I may generalize, likely to also detest Jackie Wagstaff.  Maybe I'm wrong about that but I don't think so. 

I can almost hear the clucking, tsk tsking, and derisive laughter of those readers described above.  Not one to disappoint my audience I hereby serve you up more grist for your ridicule mill:

Jackie was whispering, apparently not softly enough, in court as she, myself, several others, and everybody in the courtroom including reporters, other lawyers, and the many observers that came and went had been doing during the entire trial. 

Jackie was about to be let off with a warning by Judge Jones when Deputy Scotty Hodges intervened to tell the judge that we (and by we I mean specifically those of us who were there to support Crystal) had been disruptive during the entire trial.  It is true that he had to shush us a few times (maybe more than a few) but he had also sushed nearly everyone in the audience at one point or another.  We "supporters" had been talking for several days about how Hodges was singling us out for sushing and other minor infractions that he didn't seem to notice that everyone was engaging in (phones ringing or buzzing too loud is a common problem).  In fact Jackie herself earlier that day had spoken to Sheriff Worth Hill and made arrangements to come see the Sheriff to discuss Deputy Hodges' behavior toward our "group".  

Everyone in the audience had an opinion about how the trial was going.  It was clear from his body language and his facial expression and some muttered comments that Deputy Hodges was not a fan of Crystal's and certainly would prefer that she be found guilty.   Besides that Hodges knows all of us from previous trials and from our portrayals in the media.  To say that Hodges is an ultra-conservative would be an understatement.  

At the very moment that Jackie was about to be given a warning and released (we knew this by the comments of the judge as he was addressing the issue and framing what he was about to say) at that moment Hodges, seeing an opportunity to throw his substantial weight around interjected his prejudices into the process.  

I call them his "prejudices" because he abused his position as an officer of the court to paint our little group in the worst terms possible.  He exaggerated how disruptive we were and never mentioned that our behavior was well in line with what was going on in general in the audience.  Had we been as disruptive as he claimed why were we not ejected or brought before the judge earlier?

I will concede that if the judge could hear a remark then it was, by definition, too loud.  But I also submit that Jackie would have been let off with a warning if not for two things:  There was prejudice on the part of Deputy Hodges against us and Crystal Mangum and Judge Jones' own prejudice in favor of the police and his inability to admit to himself and everyone else that the police (and Deputies) do in fact have prejudices themselves or that they can and do distort and shade the truth as well as tell outright lies. 

I will be addressing the issue of Police (and Deputy) abuse of power.  It has been on open display in this case and this "contempt" issue is just a microcosm of what happens everyday in this city.

I'm on my way down to bring Jackie some money and offer support.  Later I will be reflecting on many aspects of the trial.  Before I go, however, I want to commend Chanel 11 ABC for their short and surprisingly unbiased coverage of yesterday's events.  Also,  I would like to thank Jessie James DeConto of the News & Observer for his use of the phrase "....Cystal Mangum the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse Rape case.."  I have been encouraging the media not to describe Crystal as the "false accuser" or her accusations as having been false in anyway because it is inaccurate and untrue.  The accusations were never proven to be false because the case never went to trial. 

Steven Matherly

Responses To Comments

As many of you know by now the jury came back deadlocked on the 1^st Degree Arson charge against Crystal.  There is a lot to talk about but first:

A FEW HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS

To DeHall:

I guess you wrote this before the verdict came in but I wanted to answer you anyway.  Yes, Crystal got several offers to plead to lesser charges.  The most recent was after the first day of the trial.  A reasonable person might say that she should have taken the plea and not roll the dice with a jury trial.  I have told her personally that she should seriously consider taking the plea if, in her judgement she felt it would be best for her.  However, she says she’s not guilty of the charges and she wanted her day in court.  The verdict wasn’t the best that could have happened but it does allow her to have her kids back and her sentence was for time served.  So, it worked out for her much the way taking the plea would have.  The only up side to doing it this way is that she has put the DA on notice that she isn’t going to roll over and just take anything he offers. 

I haven’t heard yet if she and her attorney are going to appeal the guilty verdicts on the lesser charges.  I suspect they won’t.  We have yet to see if the DA will try to go after her again. 

Thanks for your comment.

Steven Matherly

To Anonymous:

If you give me your email I will send you the contact information for a very good doctor I know who can help you with the rabies you’ve contracted.  Personally, I’d advise you to wipe the froth of your mouth and try not to get dehydrated.  The shots will be painful but you might survive the infection.  Good luck to you and thanks for the thoughtful comments.  They really made my day!

Steven Matherly

"Officer" Tyler Has Some Skeletons In His Closet!

Near the end of the trial the defense tried to get "Officer" Tyler's personnel records admitted into evidence.  This guy has been in trouble before and very recently with complaints lodged against him.  The DPD lawyer was able to keep the records out but it was clear that there was something in them that would not have looked very good if they had been brought out into the open.  I suspect that we will be hearing more about this guy as those allegations are dealt with.  Remember that name: "Officer Tyler", you'll no doubt be reading more about his exploits in the future.

Steven Matherly

The Trial Goes To The Jury

The local media don't do justice to what is happening in that courtroom.  In thirty seconds or a few paragraphs they can't really get into the meat of the matter. That's if they were in least interested in actually telling their readers/viewers what this trial is all about.

Judge Jones seems inclined to take the police at their word and to shut down any attempt to, as he puts it, "put the police on trial".  Given this situation the defense appears to be trying to say something like:  Even IF Ms. Mangum did set the fire the charge of arson is the wrong charge.  The defense in no way admits to anything but given that it seems to be off limits to challenge the police's version of events they are trying to show that even then the lighting of the fire doesn't rise to the level of arson.  In her closing argument Mani Dexter reminded the jury that there had been charges of Attempted Murder, Communicating Threats, and Identity Theft all of which had been dismissed.  Those were "over charges" she said and arson was an "over charge" as well and should have been dropped.  

Personally, I hate to see the police get off without being directly challenged on their lies.  There were many instances where the different police officers contradicted each other and even their own testimony so I have to assume the jury will see that they are lying.   The defense has chosen this strategy and I hope it works.

Two things stick out for me in this trial.  One is the mysterious appearance of that lighter in the pictures that the Fire Inspector couldn't seem to find when he looked for a source of the fire.  The other is the fact that Crystal was interrogated when she was clearly in pain and unmedicated for that pain from a lumbar puncture.  I call that torture!  She even asked at one point "It sounds like you want me to say I lit the fire" and she did just that while wincing in pain soon after.

Steven Matherly 

The Prosecution Rests

The "State" rested it's case yesterday.  

The videotaped interrogation of Crystal was shown to the jury.  It showed a woman in extreme pain from having had a lumbar puncture 36 - 48 hours earlier.  Since she had been arrested Crystal had not had access to her pain medication.  The tape lasted over half an hour or more.  At the beginning Crystal screams/moans loudly out of pain, is then interrogated, and at the end of the tape gets up bent over in pain and asks for help.  What happened in between was all done while she was in pain.  

The interrogator was a woman who told Crystal she just wanted to get her side of the story...just like on Law & Order.  Crystal told her how she and Milton got in an argument.  Milton was upset that Crystal and the kid weren't doing enough around the house.  The argument built up to Crystal asking if Milton wanted out of the relationship.  This set Milton off who started hitting her in the face and choking her from behind.  The kids were jumping on Milton and hitting him.  Milton left the house.  Somewhere in there the 911 call was made.

When the cops arrived they came right in the house and immediately threw Crystal to the floor and handcuffed her though she repeatedly told them she'd just had a lumbar puncture on her back and was in pain.  There were many things that contradicted what the police had said earlier.

Then Officer Silla got on the stand and further contradicted what Officers Thompson and Tyler had said happened.  

The defense attorney continued to note objections to many things so that they were reserved for the appeal process should things go that far.

Today there should be two or three witnesses for the defense.  That means things will probably wrap up this afternoon or tomorrow morning.  Then it goes to the jury.

Here's are the things that I think the jury will have to deal with most:

1. Which of the cops are telling the truth. Was Milton in the house or outside when Silla arrived?  Where was everyone standing when Silla arrived?  Did Silla help wrestle Crystal to the floor or was she already prone when he got there?  These were all important parts of the prosecutions case. Silla says Milton was standing at the door with his hand raised over his head (as in a "stick 'em up" pose) facing out.  Officer Tyler said he had sat Milton down in a folding chair in the living room and that's where he was when Officer Silla arrived. 

2. Who actually lit the fire?  If Crystal did it then when exactly did she have the chance to do it since she was being watched every minute?  If the fire was set earlier how come there was no smoke in the house when the cops got there?  And where did that mysterious cigarette lighter come from? It wasn't there the night of the incident but it showed up in the pictures taken sometime later?  Also, if Crystal was going back and forth loading clothes into the bath tub why didn't they stop her and how is it they didn't see that she was feeding a fire?

3. Why didn't the cops arrest Milton?  This doesn't strictly go to charges in the case but if I were on the jury it would weigh on my mind and make me doubt the credibility of the police version of what happened?  How come the prosecution didn't even address Milton's role in the whole incident?  It Takes Two To Tango, right?

4.Why, when it was clear that Crystal was in pain, did the interrogator not stop and see to it that she was taken care of properly?  During the interrogation Crystal gave an account of what happened.  The interrogator countered with questions that seemed to suggest that she thought Crystal had lit the fire.  At one point Crystal even says "Are you trying to get me to say that I lit the fire?"  Soon after that, with her head back and clearly in pain the interrogator restates the things that happened and then says "So, that's when you lit the fire, right?" Crystal, looking like she was in pain with her head back like she was stretching out her back and trying to get comfortable, that's when Crystal in a very soft voice says "Yes".  The interrogator doesn't ask how she lit the fire, with a match or a lighter, or where the cops were at the time...nothing more.  That's the entire "confession".  

5.  One of the elements of the charge of arson is that the crime only occurs if the accused intended to set the house on fire.  Even if you buy all the malarkey the cops are trying to sell then the jury must decide if Crystal (if she lit the fire) intended to burn the structure.

6.  Crystal, on the videotape, talked about how the kids were doing their homework.  Milton, earlier in the evening took one of the kids and went and got "Papa John's" pizza for dinner and the argument started about who was doing the housework or not.  This all sounds like a regular stable household to me?  So, what would lead anyone to think that a mother that takes that kind of care with her kids would set a fire in the bathtub and endanger the kids, herself, and anybody else in the area?  It just doesn't track.

7. As far as I can recall there hasn't been any evidence introduced in front of the jury that speaks to Milton Walker's mental condition except for one statement that Crystal makes on the videotape. Referring to who might have damaged the car in the driveway she says "Milton probably/might have done it.  He gets real crazy sometimes and just goes off" (That was an approximation of what she said).  Maybe today or tomorrow there can be something introduced to show that Milton, and this is true, carries a diagnosis of Paranoid Schizophrenia.  Immediately after this whole incident Mr. Walker spent about two month on the Psych ward at the Durham Veteran's Administration Hospital across from Duke North.

That's all I can think of at the moment.  I'm sure I'll have more after today.

Steven Matherly
Durham, NC

Save as Draft

Where Did That Cigarette Lighter Come From? It Wasn't There A Minute Ago?

The day was filled with legal wrangling.  The highlight, however, was the question of the "Magical Mystery Lighter".  The Investigator from the Durham Fire Department stated right there on the stand in front of God & Everybody, as they say, that he couldn't find anything that could have been used to light the fire in the bathtub.  As part of his investigation he looked around to see what might have started the fire.  He ruled out "acts of nature" such as a lightning strike.  He also ruled out an "accident" as in maybe an electrical fire of some sort.  He said he concluded, and checked the right box on his report, that the fire was started "flame to flame" i.e. somebody put a flame to the clothes in the bathtub.  That means it was started intentionally.  Funny thing is, however, he couldn't find anything that might have been used to start the fire; not a book of matches, not a lighter, nothing.  He looked around specifically for some implement that might have been used to start the fire and didn't find anything.  However, in one of the pictures shown to the jury today there was a "lighter" sitting right there in the sink.  When asked by the defense attorney where this lighter was now the investigator said he didn't know where it would be now.  When asked if he had collected it and had it tested for fingerprints he said that he had not because he HAD NOT SEEN THE LIGHTER WHEN HE WAS AT THE SCENE THAT NIGHT.  HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT UNTIL HE SAW IT IN THE PICTURES THAT WERE TAKEN AT SOME LATER TIME.  The pictures were not taken while he was there. Questions by the defense attorney did not elicit further information.  Maybe tomorrow.  I would like to know how this lighter magically appeared in the picture.

A Note To "Anonymous"

I would write to you privately if I had an email address but you refuse to identify yourself so I can't contact you.You accuse me in a recent email of cutting you off.  Well, technically, you are right but you're wrong about the reason.  I cut you off and refuse to post your emails not because I disagree with you.  I am more than glad to debate you.  You refuse to identify yourself.  I have offered not to reveal your identity on this site if you so wish but you still won't say who you really are.  You seem to know a lot about the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.  If and when you reveal your true identity then we can have a robust debate.  Until then, get your own blog!

The same goes for the rest of you who are writing without saying who you are.  I have no obligation to post your emails in the first place.  The more you email me without revealing who you are the more I have to think that you have an agenda (i.e. you have some connection to the young men accused in the Lacrosse Rape Case) that you don't want to reveal.  So, put up or shut up! 

Steven Matherly

Durham, NC

Dear Faithful Readers: I'd Love To Hear From You!

As blog's go the traffic on mine is downright pitiful.  But, I do have some folks who are reading it on a regular basis since I started writing about Crystal Mangum's Arson Trial.  I know because I have a counter and a little widget called FEEDJIT. There are icons for them  on the right hand side of the page.  The FEEDJIT has a world map and everything.

One of you readers is in Germany.  A couple are in Canada.  Most seem to be from the East Coast of the U.S.  If any of you feel like writing in I'd love to hear from you.  Even if you don't want to be published on the site just drop me a line.  I'd be interested as to why you are interested in my blog.  Do you agree with me?  Do you disagree?  Are you just interested in the case for legal or other reasons.  Really, I won't publish an email if you ask me not to.

Thanks for your interest.

Steven Matherly

Here's Why So Many Folks Hate Crystal

Sometimes I wish I could just go live with all the folks who love me and agree with me politically. We could find an isolated patch of wooded mountains, a forgotten town on a back road, or an island in the middle of the ocean. Lot’s of people, I believe, have this dream. It is just so tiring to put up with the insanity that passes for political discourse in this country that it makes me want to scream and run away.

I know, I know, if you had the money (many of you) would gladly donate to the cause to help me achieve my goal of getting away from it all. Thank you for that sentiment but we all know that we’re pretty much stuck with each other.

Here’s a serious question that I want to ask those of you who take the time out of your day to write and post things about Crystal Mangum like “She’s a waste of a human soul” or “She’s a worthless sack of human skin”. Both of these comments are real and they both set up “humanity” as the “us” and Crystal as one of “them”. This is how one talks about an enemy because it allows you to believe that when you kill them it wasn’t murder it was more akin to exterminating a pest like rats, ants, or cockroaches. I know all about the First Amendment and I am in no way suggesting you don’t have the right to say these things. A constitutional lawyer might have something to say about it but I’m not a constitutional lawyer. What I am is a human and I hope you consider me one, i.e. as one of “us” because I would hate to be one of "them".

The “other” used to be all black folks in slavery times and then after “Reconstruction” and on into the “Jim Crow”era and, despite rumors to the contrary, the idea continues to this very day. A prime example of the persistence of this attitude is the existence and continued generation of postings such as those sited above.

Now, don’t get me wrong. If you are in some way related to those Lacrosse guys then you might be forgiven for overzealously jumping to their defense. Likewise, if you represent some other party who was harmed in the whole Lacrosse debacle – the Lacrosse coach for example – I’ll cut you a little slack. But what I don’t get is the rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth, demonizing of Crystal by nearly the entire white population of Durham, North Carolina, and the entire country.

The press has painted Crystal as a slut, a liar, a psychopath, a ghetto dwelling mooch sub-human. We can debate the merits of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case until the cows come home. That isn’t my intent here. My intent is to try to fathom what it is about Crystal Mangum that so infuriates people. I have a theory but let me lay the groundwork first.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument that Crystal is guilty of falsely accusing those Lacrosse guys. Let’s even say that she did it because she has some form of mental illness. Let’s even say she’s manipulating the legal system to some nefarious end and plans to make a fortune off her story.

I submit that the exact same actions by a white woman would not elicit such scorn and attacks as have been visited upon her to date. Here’s why:

             The United States has a long and sordid history of race relations. After the Civil War there was a brief period where black folks held positions as congressman and local politicians and business and generally were working their way into the broader American society as more or less equals. When the federal troops were abruptly pulled out of the south some 16 or so years after the war all that stopped. What became known as Jim Crow was instituted. Whites reasserted themselves as the masters and created laws to place black back into servitude. In fact there’s a great book called Slavery By Another Name that goes into detail about the thousands of black folks who were literally enslaved in the coal mines and factories of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and most other southern and some northern states. 

At the same time as this re-enslavement/apartheid was being perpetrated the “terror” wing of white society (no, of course not ALL white folks but most of them) was going around “lynching” black folks to the tune of hundreds every year. The Klan, of course, gets all the credit for the lynching but there were other groups and a great many spontaneous lynchings. You may have seen some of the post cards that were made in the twenties and thirties of a burned corpse hanging from a tree in front of the county court house with dozens of white folks in their Sunday best with picnics spread out for the event. These weren’t isolated incidents. This was common and pervasive across the south and the Midwest. 

So, knowing that this is our history when something like the Duke Lacrosse Case comes along it is really not that hard to follow the historical line of evidence of racism from times long past to the recent past (the so-called Civil Rights era) to the present. Racism was a nationwide thing and always has been. The South was just the most flagrant example of it since that’s where most black folks lived and still live. 

I do not paint with a broad brush.. The two things lacking from the whole Duke Lacrosse Case that distinguishes it from the racist riots of the 1920’s and 30’s is the use of the N word (that would have provoked a backlash that would have quickly gotten out of hand) and an actual lynching (folks had to be satisfied with doing it in the press and now in court). Everything else is the same. She’s so ghetto. She’s a whore. She’s a waste of a human soul and much, much worse. You know what I’m talking about. You’ve read what people say about her. Many of you wrote those things yourselves. You’ve said those things to your friends and shook your head as to why the “black community” can’t seem to get itself together. If you said these things or if you even thought these things you are a part of the problem. What you need to do is examine your heart and see if you can find some decency there that will allow you to see Crystal for what she is : First and foremost a human being (go ahead, say it to yourselves a few times. It gets easier every time and you’ll feel better about yourself once you let go of the hate) The next thing is to realize that as a human being she if flawed – as are we all. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. You remember that from Sunday school, don’t you? Now that we’ve established that Crystal is actually one of “us” and not a “them” we can begin to get some perspective on things. 

I know that I will be misquoted and misunderstood for saying all this. I will say right now that I am a supporter of Crystal Mangum. You don’t have to be. Go ahead and believe what you want about the things that she did. But in your heart of hearts you know that it is wrong to attack her personally. And, you know in your heart of hearts that if she were white she wouldn’t have suffered nearly the abuse that she’s gotten simply because she’s black. You also know that when a white woman accuses a black man of raping her it is a completely different scenario. Even if that woman were proven to be wrong and the black man was wealthy (I’ll have to look up case of Pro ball players this might have happened to) the outcome would have been very different. 

Now, go about your business but let’s not have any more of this racist rhetoric.

Mark "Lonesome Rhodes" McCullough Resorts To Insults When His Case Flounders

This is copied from an answer I gave on to an N&O online article this morning:

Witness: Mangum gave no warning about fire in apartment

Here's the link:http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/10/855264/witness-mangum-gave-no-warning.html#storylink=misearch#ixzz17oSwr068 

Assn't DA Mark McCullough is losing this case and he knows it. That is why he stood up in front of the press and the cameras and launched into this pretend tirade. You should have seen him. He put his hand on his hip and and waved the other in the air like he was on the revival circuit! The day before his witness, "Officer" Thompson couldn't keep her story straight and all but had a melt down on the stand. So, the next day, McCullough, seeing how bad his case is going, takes the opportunity to grandstand for the media.

Even if you believe everything the prosecution is saying, which is a big if, this whole issue is absurd. By his own admission "Officer" Tyler says that all this happened very quickly, within seconds. He even says that he had just that second smelled and seen the smoke. So, again assuming he's telling the truth, Ms. Mangum has just been handcuffed. Tyler immediately starts running around trying to find the fire blah, blah, blah. We are supposed to be incensed at Ms. Mangum for not jumping up and frantically trying to save her babies. By their own admission she's under arrest and been told to be still. She didn't smell or see the smoke (assuming the cop's version is true) She is angry and supposedly focused on Mr. Walker's presence.

This whole thing was aired in open court but the jury had been sent out of the room. The judge even knew it was grandstanding.

I know you folks don't like Ms. Mangum but you should at least know what you're talking about before you start spouting off. It just makes you look crazier than you already look when you call her a worthless sack of skin? Does your mother know you talk like that? Does it make you proud to hide behind a screen name and say things your own children know are despicable? Shame on you! Be a grown up and resist your worst impulses to dehumanize someone.

Steven Matherly

Officer Thompson Doesn't Like Being Grilled Like A Suspect!

You just had to be there to see and understand how angry Officer Thompson was when she was cross examined by Crystal's defense attorney Mani Dexter.  During "Direct" questioning by Assn't DA Mark McCullough she simply looked like a deer caught in the headlights and like she was about to cry.  But when Ms. Dexter challenged her on some of the finer points of her testimony she looked like she wanted to jump off the witness stand and put some serious hurt on her interrogator. 

For most of the cross examination Officer Thompson would not look at Ms. Dexter.  Instead, she turned her head slightly and looked down.  When forced to answer a question under repeated questioning she faced the jury with a stone hard look on her face and spat out the words.

At one point the defense attorney asked a question that went something like this: 

Attorney:  "The reason you make sure that the two parties involved in domestic violence are separated is that there is a potential for one of them to snap, isn't that right?:"

Officer Thompson had to be asked the question several times (three I think) and each time she refused to accept the word "snap".  Eventually the defense attorney called a side bar with the prosecutor and the judge and the jury was sent out of the court room for a few minutes.  There was some discussion and when the jury was back in their seats Ms. Dexter read from the transcript of the evidence suppression hearing. That hearing was the one about Crystal's fourth amendment rights being violated because she asked them to leave and they didn't.  The evidence wasn't suppressed but the officer was under oath and there is a transcript.  So, at this point the defense attorney read from the transcript and asked if Officer Thompson remembered saying those words in court.  Now that she was faced with her own words Officer Thompson's only response was:  "Yes, if that's what the transcript says".  What else could she say, right?

This officer looks to be under thirty.  She is on the small side and, at the time of the incident in question, she had been with the Durham Police Department for a just a little over a year.  So, I think Rookie is a description that fits her status both then and now. 

I have to admit that I feel just a little sorry for this young officer.  It is clear that she does not feel good about the position she is in.  She is being asked, I believe, to testify, under oath, to things that she knows did not happen that night.  Her superior officer, Officer Tyler appears to have completely mucked up  that domestic violence call in a testosterone driven frenzy and now she is caught in the middle having to help clean up the mess he made of the situation.  So, I feel her pain...but only a little.  She could, if she so chose, tell the truth and if she were true to the oath she took when she put on that uniform that is exactly what she would do. 

More to the point...the jury is seeing all this.

A Word About Commenting On This Site

I am being inundated by someone or someones who call themselves Anonymous.  They seem to have a lot of information about the Duke Lacrosse Rape case and I welcome their input.  However, they refuse to identify themselves.  I suspect that they have some connection to the young men who were accused in the Lacrosse case.  It seems odd that the moment I start writing about this current case on Democracy Durham I am blasted by this/these guys. So, here's what I'm going to do. Anyone who wants me to publish their comments must use a "handle" that identifies them by name or they must include their name in the body of the comment.  If you do not want your identity put on this blog just tell me so and I won't identify you by name when  I respond.  However, I will identify that you are who you say you are to my satisfaction.  So, keep those cards and letters coming but no more hiding behind a screen name!  If you want a platform to promote your point of view then start your own blog because you're not going to hijack this one!

Steven Matherly

Durham, NC

Pride, Prejudice, & The Judicial System

I have been on trial (a bench trial) and I have sat through several trials.  Each time I walk away with mixed feelings.  I am amazed at how hard we try to be fair and the time and energy expended on picking jurors who will be impartial.  I am disgusted, though, by how easily prejudice and inequitable treatment of a defendant slips through the rather large cracks in the system.  Judges and Prosecutors have incredible power to shape their cases in ways that are favorable to their case.  In this case the Assn't DA has (rather unskillfully) tried to pick a jury that is flat out prejudiced against Ms. Mangum.  His questions to prospective jurors were designed to find out if they could be fair and impartial.  However, rather than doing the right thing and dismissing them when they said they had already formed an opinion (i.e. that they held a prejudice against Ms. Mangum) far from excusing them from serving he welcomed them aboard.  Luckily the Defense was able to blunt most of these attacks on the impartiality of the jury.  

The "State" has full time prosecutors, a full time staff, police officers who are willing to shade the truth or outright lie about what happened and the defendant (not just Crystal but ANY defendant) has to find a way to counter this onslaught of deceit, half truths, outright lies, distortions, and intimidation.  

Now, if you have money like those Lacrosse guys did then this isn't such a burden.  But for most people it really is a burden.  Having a Public Defenders office is something but compared to the Prosecutor's resources it really isn't a fair match.  The cops, the prosecutor, the judge, they all just go about their business whether they can convict this person or not.  For the defendant it is often their life hanging in the balance, they have a lot more riding on the outcome so it is much more stressful.  (If the first thing that pops into your head when you read this is "Well, they shouldn't have done the crime" then you win the label of "Prejudiced" because you have Pre Judged someone simply because they have been accused).

The thing you have to remember is that it is the job of the cops to find people who have committed crimes and arrest them.  In addition to any prejudices they might have against a particular individual or group (i.e. blacks, hispanics, etc) there is this built in hunting instinct that pervades "law enforcement".  A cop looks bad if he/she goes out on a call and does nothing.  If they go to a domestic disturbance and they don't arrest someone and then someone gets killed they will be blamed for not doing something.   So, I understand that there are inherent difficulties in police work. However, what has happened here is that these particular cops took actions they shouldn't have taken and then tried to cover up what they did.  That's the defense's point of view at least.

The trial starts today.  Let's all hope (pray if you must) that these cops find it in their hearts to tell the truth and not lie on the stand.  Yes, cops lie.  Not just some cops but many cops.  It is Standard Operating Procedure.  This I know from personal experience and from endless tales of friends and community members.

THE 14TH JUROR

Today was the day of "The 14th Juror". One prospective juror after another was dismissed - mostly "For Cause".  That means that they weren't suited for this jury.  If you ask me most of them weren't suited for ANY jury.  Now I know that they are encouraged to be open and honest when they answer the questions put them but this was just too much!  Yesterday, the DA passed on three black folks in a row because they said that they would prefer to have "direct" evidence in addition to circumstantial evidence before they could convict someone.  Today, we had a procession of prejudiced people who, one after another, stated with straight faces that, based on what they had heard in the media about Crystal concerning the Lacrosse case, that they would not be able to treat her fairly.  They sat up there and admitted to their bias.  

Here's the thing that infuriates me:  There was never a trial, everything they heard (and apparently) believed came from the lawyers of those young men, and none of it was proven in a court of law.  So, how can you sit up there and say that you can't keep an open mind and give her the benefit of the doubt.  What is wrong with people.  I guess I should be glad that they told the truth (who would lie about such a thing) but whatever happened to self respect?  I would feel dirty and ashamed to sit up there and declare, to the world, in open court, that I was so ignorant and bigoted as to "form an opinion" about someone based on only one side of the discussion and on facts fed to me by partisans for that side!  

People get SO upset if you call them racist or prejudiced but there it was today in living color!!!

Steven Matherly

You Decide: Did He Do It If Nobody Saw Him?

Mr Bean - Stealing cake
Uploaded by mrbean. - Watch more comedy videos and sitcoms.

DA: Let Them Eat Cake!

Assistant DA McCullough has a thing for cake.  In his questioning of prospective jurors the Assn't DA today took a pass three times in a row when three (all black) folks answered one of his questions the wrong way. 

The question had to do with whether the prospective juror could convict someone on "circumstantial" evidence or would they need "direct" evidence in order to convict.  The example of "direct" evidence he used was that of an eyewitness (he didn't mention how unreliable eyewitnesses can be).

The example of "circumstantial evidence" was a rather comical spiel that went like this:  "You've just baked a cake with your child.  You leave it on the kitchen table.  You go out of the room and when you come back there is a piece taken out of it.  Your child is standing there with frosting all over his/her lips".  He asks if, under those circumstances, could you find your way to convicting someone even though there was no "direct" evidence?

Well,  three black folks in a row said similar things.  One said that he would have to look around and see if the frosting on the kid's lips was the same color or if he had eaten a doughnut in the interim.  That guy was dismissed.  One lady asked: "Is this a trick question?"  and then said she'd have to take ALL the evidence, both direct and circumstantial into account.  She was given the boot.  The other person said something similar and was summarily dismissed as well. 

I mention that they were black because it was apparent that whenever a white person got on the stand to be interrogated they couldn't say anything wrong.  Right after these three were dismissed a white guy got up on the stand and the Assn't DA didn't even ask him the "cake" question and then said he was acceptable to the State.  The Defense attorney rejected him, thank goodness.

It must have been very important to the Assn't DA to get rid of those folks who insisted on considering ALL the evidence because he used his last three "preemptive" votes (i.e. dismissals for no reason).    

The Associated Press Was There Today

Here's a shout out to Mr. Emery Dalesio from the AP.   Glad to have you here.  I apologize for not being able to speak with you today. If you've read what the N&O and the Herald have said about Ms. Mangum and her supporters you'll know why.   The N&O (that's the guy with the white computer sitting in the front row) was particularly insulting with their portrait of us "supporters".  It's as if Ms. Mangum doesn't have a right to have supporters.  The tone was insulting and I don't remember those Lacrosse guys being questioned about why their supporters were stuffing every seat in the courthouse. 

Anyway, Mr. AP, I have a few requests for you:

1.  Please remember that Ms. Mangum is a human being.  I hope that seems obvious to you but I feel I have to say it because there are an awful lot of people out there who have literally said that they think she isn't.  Read the stuff folks write on their blogs.  Read the hate and venom that is, to this day, still being spewed by far too many people about Ms. Mangum.

2. Please remember that she, we her supporters, and her relatives are effected by what you write.  By all means tell the truth but give some thought to the tone.  Being sarcastic, leaving out important context, and simply parroting the hateful things other people say isn't helpful, nor is it responsible journalism.

3. How about trying a unique idea for a story:  You could actually delve into the way in which the media has slanted their reporting about Ms. Mangum and the racism behind it.  Folks around here like to say that we're progressive and modern but most of these folks around here know people personally (or have a family member who was or is) in the Klan. I grew up here, I know! Anyone over 50 lived through actual apartheid.

4. Another thing you could do is try to write about all the support that Ms. Mangum actually has in the community.  Take some time and walk around talking to people at NCCU and North East Central Durham and you'll find a lot of support.  Be careful how and where you ask the questions though, these folks have to live in this community and not everyone is brave enough to speak out against the dominant narrative.  She has a lot of support among black folks and, surprisingly, more than you would think among thoughtful white folks.

Steven Matherly

Possible Start Of Trial Today But...A Few More Jurors Have To Be Selected

The trial might get started today but I wouldn't hold my breath.  Choosing these jurors has taken quite a while so I'm guessing things will start up tomorrow at the earliest.  We'll see.

There was an interesting exchange between Ms. Dexter, the defense attorney, and Judge Abraham Jones yesterday.  Ms. Dexter tried to ask a white male possible juror if he had much interaction with black folks.  The guy was sent out of the room and the Judge addressed the issue.  Judge Jones seems to think that if you raise the question of race you might be planting a thought in the guys mind that hadn't been there before.

This guy said he was from Virginia somewhere.  I don't know how he could NOT have had some interaction with black folks and how he might NOT have formed an opinion about black folks.  I would have liked to know what every one of the jurors selected so far thinks about black folks.  I think it a real issue since race has been such a factor in the Lacrosse case.