Monday, October 27, 2008

Reflections on the Mangum Opus

As could be expected from the work of a serial fabricator, Crystal Mangum’s memoir is little more than a tissue of lies.

1.) The book restated one of Mangum’s most transparent lies—that she was consistent in describing the “attack.”

Mangum writes, “My account of what happened next is the same as I have described all along. It has been said that I gave varying accounts but that just isn't true.”

This statement is nothing short of breathtaking. In fact, Mangum never told the same story twice.

  • The number of attackers varied (from 20 to 6 to 5 to 4 to 3 to 2 to 0).

  • Kim Roberts’ role varied (from accomplice in the “attack” to impartial observer to fellow “victim”).

  • The time of the “attack” varied (from no time, to just after 11.00pm, to—in the memoir—just after 11.15pm).

  • The laws of physics varied (Mangum’s spring 2007 version had the “attack” occurring as she was levitating in mid-air).

Even in her pre-indictment versions of the events, Mangum’s basic description of who allegedly did what wildly varied:

  • A green X corresponds to the story that Mangum told Tara Levicy on March 14, 2006.
  • A blue Y corresponds to the story that Mangum told Gottlieb and Officer Ben Himan on March 16, 2006.
  • A red Z corresponds to the story that Mangum provided in her April 6, 2006 official statement.

















Whether Mangum—as a serial fabricator—simply can’t tell the truth, or whether—as Attorney General Cooper speculated in April 2007—her mental problems lead her to believe her own lies is immaterial. For her to claim that she described “what happened” the same way throughout the case is absurd.

2.) Mangum is a great believer in conspiracy theories.

Everyone, it seems, was out to get Mangum (except for Mike Nifong and former SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy).

  • Bad stories about her character? The fault of former associates from the world of exotic dancing, who didn’t like her.

  • News about her medical history? The fault of her doctor, who must have leaked the information. (In fact, the first word of her mental problems came from an Esquire interview with her mother.)

  • The time-stamped photos that directly contradicted her stories? The photos were doctored, perhaps by Duke.

  • The DNA evidence that directly contradicted her stories? There’s secret DNA evidence, that some sort of conspiracy has prevented ever being made public.

  • The lack of any corroborating witnesses for her myriad tall tales? According to Mangum, “They are going to get away with it because Duke has paid everyone to be silent.”

  • Her hero, Mike Nifong, being disbarred for ethical misconduct? “The [unnamed] forces aligned against the case needed Nifong’s license.”

The media (especially 60 Minutes and CNN), defense attorneys, Kim Roberts, and bloggers also enter into various conspiracy theories against Mangum.

3.) The book continued Mangum’s tendency to consistently adjust her story to fit newly publicized facts that undermined her previous version of events.

Perhaps the best example of this pattern came in the Dec. 20, 2006 frame, in which she changed the time of the “attack,” abandoned her claim that Dave Evans had a mustache the night of the party, and said she no longer could be sure she was raped—all to address unimpeachable physical evidence that disproved her March/April 2006 stories.

The most apparent “convenient recollection” from her memoir came in her contention that her alleged second attacker “decided to penetrate me again. This time anally and painfully. He removed himself just before he had an orgasm and ejaculated on the floor.”

This item wasn’t described in that fashion in any of her (myriad) stories—but its inclusion in the memoir allows her to suggest a grand conspiracy to conceal evidence that somehow corroborates her story. She writes,

I also believe the police found one other DNA sample that has rarely been mentioned in any news accounts. That sample was found near the sink in the bathroom. From what I was told, it was semen from one of the individuals who had been at the party. Again, we will never know unless the case file is made public.

Despite Mangum’s insinuations, this information (coupled with the name of Matt Zash, someone Mangum twice failed to recognize when shown his photo) has been public since at least May 2006. Moreover, in (most of) Mangum’s stories, the “second attacker” was Collin Finnerty. Zash is just under 6 feet, with black hair and a stocky build. Finnerty is tall, with light brown hair, a distinctive face, and a lean, athletic build. In short, Mangum’s new “second attacker” looks nothing like her 2006 claimed “second attacker.”

At the very least, does Mangum apologize for making what even she now concedes was a false allegation against Finnerty?

Of course not.

4.) Inconvenient facts can simply be ignored.

The DNA from multiple, unidentified males found in her rape kit and concealed for months by Nifong and former lab director Brian Meehan?

  • Not according to Mangum: “I have seen reports implying that I had multiple sex partners in the days or maybe hours before the incident. This was not proven in the DNA samples that were taken at the hospital.”

The photos showing Mangum outside the lacrosse captains’ locked door (which was locked to prevent her from gaining re-entrance into the house)?

  • Not according to Mangum: She actually was inside the house when the door was locked.

Her loss of a driver’s license, from her previous conviction of stealing a taxi and then trying to run down a cop in a drunken rage?

  • Not according to Mangum: “Having a driver is part of the business for a vast majority of the girls. Not only does the driver make sure you get where you need to go but also serves as protection.”

The many photos, showing an incredibly dull party, with lacrosse players uninterested in Mangum’s performance?

  • Not according to Mangum: “It seemed as though the entire crowd was going to converge on us. They were so much more vocal than the people I danced for at the Platinum Club, and they looked as though they wanted to provoke a confrontation . . . we were confronted by a group of angry guys. It seemed as though they were yelling and screaming at the tops of their lungs . . . The crowd was extremely agitated . . . I could hear yelling in the other room. It sounded like the way people scream and cheer at a football game.”

5.) Mangum has reached the bottom of the barrel with her current enablers.

Anyone who followed the lacrosse case knows of the despicable performance of Al McSurely, the NAACP lawyer who published the August 2006 error-laden, guilt-presuming “memorandum of law” about the case.

The other key figures in producing the Mangum book? Academic “advisor” Myra Shird preposterously suggested that those who had determined that Mangum had lied—and was a figure of, to put it mildly, dubious character—were guilty of the kind of prejudgment that led to slavery and the Holocaust.

And co-author “Ed” Clark produced a preface that more resembled the work of a love-struck schoolboy (“My heart pounded. I had been waiting for the opportunity to meet the accuser”) than a serious writer.

Both Clark and Shird provide heavy helpings of race-baiting rhetoric—as could be expected from the ranks of the true believers.


The best evaluation of Mangum’s opus came from Joe Cheshire: “Her continued assertion that an assault happened is really pathetic . . . She’s clearly doing this to make money. By continuing to lie, she makes everything in the book, everything she says, a lie.”


skwilli said...

Thanks KC, your concise analysis always make my day.

Anonymous said...

Another inconsistency I found interesting was that Mangum claimed that the video of her dancing at the Platinum Club was actually shot well before the Duke party. This lie, of course, contradicts an earlier lie -- when she told Hoax-supporter Samiha Khanna that "[t]his was the first time she had been hired to dance provocatively for a group ...."


I also wanted to ask if it wasn't Essence Magazine, and not Esquire, which came out with the first reporting of Mangum's mental health issues? There were actually two early articles on the subject:

"But family members immediately went on the offensive about the young woman’s history. The mother of the alleged victim told ESSENCE magazine that her daughter did go away to a hospital in Raleigh, North Carolina, for about a week last year, where she was treated for a 'nervous breakdown.'”

Essence Magazine actually broke a few stories about the case, and it did a better job reporting than the Pre-Neff N&O stories. Of course, you had carefully to wade through the pro-Mangum propaganda.


Back to the victimization motif throughout the book, my favorite quote is the following: "This is the quintessential story about unfairness." Here I thought the archtype of the genre might be something like "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave" or "The Diary of Anne Frank." In my opinion, Mangum's claptrap is quintessential bullshit because if you walk a cow field, you see it everywhere.


Thanks for taking the bullet, again, on this, Professor Johnson! MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Great post, K.C. It is interesting to see just who is pushing this current set of lies: a "respected civil rights" lawyer and a college professor. I find it curious that "respected" people are behind this.

Apparently, North Carolina is a place where those who lie and whose lies cause real calamities face no consequences. There are and will be people there ready to believe those lies -- and this includes some Duke faculty members and staffers -- because the lies help to validate their own political agendas.

Thank you for helping to expose those lies, although right now it seems to me that in places like Durham, people prefer the lie to the truth, and I don't think that is going to change anytime soon.

One Spook said...

Since KC has posted several entries on the book announcement and comments tend to be made in the latest posting, I thought some of you might have missed this absolutely brilliant comment by “Rob, UK” on 10/25 under KC’s 10/23 “Shameless” posting, regarding a statement by Mangum co-author Ed Clark, “who the N&O delicately describes as “a self-employed publicist.”

Rob, UK said...

I have to laugh at the assertion by Clark that the interest in the case from "non locals" and their common themes in their coverage of the case indicated a right wing conspiracy.

That's right: pointing out glaring testimonial inconsistencies, pointing out massive process inconsistencies, pointing out forensic gaps and generally expressing amazement at clear abuses of power is "right wing". It couldn't possibly be about justice or principles, could it? Principles which nearly everyone would expect in an investigation irrespective of the apparent crime type or the victim/perpetrator demographics.

I lose the will to live when I hear "theories" like this.

10/25/08 5:09 AM

In case any of you doubt that Rob actually lives in the UK, note his last sentence, which is quintessential British humor and caused me to clean coffee off of my monitor because I truly laughed out loud when I read it.

In my other life, I spent a good deal of time in the UK and always marveled at the Brit’s splendid use of the English language (as opposed to the American language) and their magnificent understated style of humor.

I’m going to steal that quip and use it in the future! Thanks, and “Cheers,” Rob!

One Spook

Debrah said...

Mangum just stood up there talking away in her own parallel universe.

And her helpers who are alleged professionals in yet another universe---known only to those whose careers depend on pushing victimhood at every turn---gladly assisted as they continue to be the beneficiaries of a system set up to reward this kind of sideshow.

Mangum and friends are so accustomed to getting by in society by manufacturing sob stories to explain away everything. They are never encumbered by the idea that facts and reality are important.

If facts and reality do not provide them the desired easy result, they simply concoct a new reality.

I love the chart above.

The only way justice will ever be served is to prosecute this diabolical Mangum once and for all.

Anonymous said...

The question remains, I suppose, whether the book is so pitifully and transparently false and the accuser's reasoning so delinked from established fact that the LAX team can just ignore the book or do they have to take action?

Quasimodo posted something on LS about a movie produced in the mid 1970s on the Scottsboro case that (of course) explained the charges were false. The airing of the movie provoked the chief accuser, who to everyone's surprise was still alive, to sue for defamation and insist that the rape HAD actually taken place.

And we have the example of the Tawana Brawley family continuing to insist that her accusations were accurate despite the strongest of evidence to the contrary.

So Ms. Mangum is not the first to continue in her insistence that the evidence and established fact is either not relevant or incorrect...but she does seem to be the first to publish a book codifying her leaps of logic and those of her handlers.


Anonymous said...

Do you know what Nifong and Magnum have in common?

They are both in a State of Denials!

Dr. Phil, are you reading this?

Debrah said...

Why are the lacrosse attorneys so silent?

Surely they've read this "book" of slander and libel redux just as KC has.

I'm hoping this is the calm before the storm of lawsuits against this shameless group of hustlers.

2008 GOALS said...

I doubt the word to describe the lacrosse attorneys is "silent" althought that may be our perception. I bet "busy" is more accurate--getting those suits drafted! If she's not served by the end of the month, I'll buy you dinner!

Debrah said...

Here's Stuart Taylor's latest

Indeed, bigotry will be a tough sell.

And I hope that one day soon these race-hustlers will run out of excuses.

Anonymous said...

"Some Newspapers Shed Unprofitable Readers"

The link shows the Top 20 circulation numbers.

The title comes from a Wall Street Journal article published this morning that claims, "Some newspapers have raised newstand prices, curtailed disounted copies and halted delivery to the least profitable customers."

No mention is made about the overt agenda-driven, biased reporting or the pitiful content. They continue to think their problems are entirely related to their business model.

"Unprofitable Readers" indeed...too damned funny.

Anonymous said...

Inre: shedding of unprofitable readers (newpaper), it is instructive to compare the lost circulation in the greater Dallas area with the population growth.

The nine urban counties in D/FW have seen population growth from 2.3 million people to over 6.2 million since 1970. The population has grown over 1.2 million since 2000.

Yet the Dallas Morning News circulation was down over 9.2% to a circulation of only 338,933 as of 9/08.

Makes on wonder how they define "unprofitable readers".

Maybe it is the agenda-driven reporting and overt bias that is killing circulation? How can we lose freedom of the press if we don't currently have any?

Anonymous said...

Where is the outrage from Mangum's community? From true victim's rights advocates?

Don't they know what irreparable damage this unrepentent liar is doing to their causes?

She is setting their causes back decades. Quiet heroism is being undone by this continuing fraud.

How is anyone ever going to be able to credibly believe future cries of rape and discrimination?

Anonymous said...

Why? you may ask ....
Any and all comments by cgm and her handlers are closely monitored, my friend. The "book release", sans book, opens many avenues of exploration for potential litigation.

in time ....

Anonymous said...

Why indeed are the attorneys being so silent? I can only hope it's because they are in one heckuva conference call lining up the cadre of lawsuits ready to be hurled CGM's way for every lousy dollar the book earns.
At the rate the dynamic team picked apart Mikey and Co. they should have little problem making mincemeat of our budding authoress. The only problem that they will have is having enough boards to keep tabs on the number of variations in the story. They will have to consult with David Copperfield while preparing to understand Precious' ability to be levitated.
Personally, I want to see the "defense" team go on the offensive and let Precious go on the defensive. The ghost writers should have the opportunity for an out-of-body experience as well. They will have the backup band of pot bangers and pro-castration chorus. Wow.
Crystal still looks at the world through colored glasses--not rose colored, possibly a kaleidoscope--that's about par for the course. With that kind of outlook, she will be getting a multi-faceted view of the world. The only problem is that she still provides the commentary and it is twisted (like her mind).
Time for a brief--go ahead and sue for what she has, what she may have, and what she fabricates.
Forget MOO--let's call BULL!

One Spook said...

Once again, some who comment here continue to clamor for a civil suit to be filed against Mangum.

Mangum wants that to happen, also.

In the N & O Article article link that KC provided in this post, there is also a link to a video of the press conference of Mangum speaking as she rolls out “I Was Sexually Assaulted, Version 19.7.”

At about the 4:55 minute mark, Mangum is asked by a reporter, "Why did you come forward with this now?"

Mangum replies, in part, "I was waiting for a civil trial ... my only interest was to have a real trial ... that never happened for whatever reason."

I had opined in an earlier posting that there might be good reasons that the families of the players do not want to sue Mangum, to wit “The families have to consider that bringing a suit against Mangum will, in effect, give Mangum her "day in court" --- an obvious charade that she and her enablers seem to so desperately want.

There are inherent risks in doing that --- having to expend considerable expense and time to refute all of the lies and false "facts" from the delusional mind of Mangum and already at hand among the “something happened” crowd; the players would have to appear and once again disrupt their lives with this nonsense; and the entire hoax is again given a new life.”

I think it would be interesting if some of the lawyers with civil suit experience, such as “Tortmaster” MOO Gregory, Jim in San Diego, RRH, or any other lawyer with similar experience reading this, would weigh in and consider this question:

Apart from proving once again that Mangum is a serial liar and achieving some degree of vengeance, just what is the benefit for the players and their families in suing Mangum?

One Spook

Anonymous said...

Is Clark a Communist?

Anonymous said...

I can't get away from a nagging thought. Wonder if the lawyers on this site would weigh in on it..

Is there any chance that this ridiculous book stunt might be a red herring, promoted behind the scenes from those Hoaxters in Duke and Durham, in order to divert attention from them to Mangum?

Might going after Mangum at this time actually backfire against CRD and others?

Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see the book, in fact SEVERAL books thrown at this woman... both literally and figuratively. In fact, I'd like to help throw them!

But something keeps worrying me about this. I don't know if it is the political timing, or the suits that are progressing at a snail's pace, or what. It certainly does NOT feel like coincidence. Neither Mangum nor her handlers are smart enough to contrive a decoy. But some people behind the scenes definitely ARE.


Anonymous said...

Question for the lawyers-is there not such a thing as an injunction, a sort of cease and desist order from a judge to prevent publication of defamatory statements that the AG has already declared false?

Anonymous said...



I was already sloppy drunk. It wasn't so much the beer, but all the pills. I don't even know what those blue ones were, but I'm a big fan now. That morning of the Duke party I had sex with so many clients it was like I danced under an open sperm hydrant. With all the booze, drugs and sex, I barely had time to make myself presentable for the party.


The guy at the door asked me when the second female dancer was going to show up. I told him that it was me. He didn't seem convinced, but he eventually took me to meet the other dancer. In the bathroom, Nikki asked me, "When is the second female dancer going to show up." I just took a long pull on my drink.


While we were dancing, I caught a glimpse of the boys in the living room. They looked like they were watching an autopsy. A very hot, sexy autopsy. I heard one of them yawn and say something like, "I thought we ordered two females?" Then, I puked a little on myself again and passed out again....


Is this the first Non-Fan Fiction ever written? If so, another first for the serial fabricator. MOO! Gregory

Debrah said...


Could Mikey be lifting McCain signs off November Drive---where he and Cy live---to prove his support for Obama?

He does, after all, have lots of time on his hands.

More nuttiness in Durham.



Obama sign stolen

I am perplexed and saddened. A thief has taken my Obama yard sign. It was only a few feet from my front door on a short, no-outlet street.

Did the thief think that even one person would not vote for Barack Obama because he or she would not see my sign? Did this person search for an out-of-the-way sign to avoid detection? Why didn't he just put a different sign in his yard? I would not have taken it. Was this, my personal property, stolen while I slept that night? I feel more violated than when my car was broken into. That was impersonal; someone merely wanted something of monetary value. This was an attempt to rob me of my right to express my political conviction.

I cannot imagine being influenced by a campaign sign or threatened by one I do not support. I did not display mine to sway any voter, but to declare my pride in supporting Sen. Obama. My new sign is now in my front window.

Not incidentally, I am a 64-year old white woman; just one of many older, white volunteers at the Obama campaign office in Durham.

October 28, 2008

McCain sign stolen

We (my daughter and I) replaced the missing McCain/Palin signs at the corner of Umstead Road and November Drive on a recent Saturday, and placed one at the corner of our property too (across from November). They lasted two days this time, summarily replaced with Hagan and Obama signs. Has the redistribution of land begun?

Funny how the McCrory signs remain -- since that one is probably in the bag?

October 28, 2008

Debrah said...

I think that deep down Nifong despises Crystal Mangum.

Of course, he could never utter such a statement aloud.

And you know big Cy despises her.

After all, doesn't Cy pull in a big annual salary as a "women's advocate" in some governmental agency......IIRC?

Seems Mikey grabbed ahold of the worst "victim" to be found in Durham. And that is saying something.

And Cy feverishly orchestrated Mikey's campaign around the wrong "poor black mother".

It's all quite amusing from a distance.

Down the road, KC will have enough subject matter off this never-ending saga for a series of books.

And he must do that!

Actually, I was thinking that an elaborate mini-series will be the way to go.

Like "The Winds of War"

Only the Mangum Hoax would be called "Pole Dancing with Mikey"---a Mint Julep Production.

Speaking of Mikey.....more entertainment.

Anonymous said...

I would be curious to know what Jim Coman and Mary Winstead think of the descriptions Crystal gives of her meetings with them. For now, however, there seem to be no consequences to Crystal and her backers for lying and lying and lying.

Anonymous said...

I agree with One Spook at 9:50. Why should the players be forced to expend time, energy, and money suing Mangum every time she opens her mouth? Her book appears simply to repeat what she has been saying all along. And it does not look like the book is going to be a best seller, or even a mediocre seller, so it's not like they need to do anything to keep her from receiving a big payday.

On the other hand, a civil trial might, in fact, put Mangum's charges before a jury. There's a saying that Truth is an absolute defense in a defamation case. Therefore, Mangum would argue in court that she gets to try to prove that she was assaulted. No matter how strong or weak the evidence, there's no such thing as a slam-dunk case. No one can predict what could happen -- that's surely one reason the guys worked so hard to avoid a criminal trial in the first place. And even a hung jury could give some legitimacy to Mangum's charges.

Ken Duke
Durham Attorney

Anonymous said...

Suing Mangum is silly. It gives her a chance to parade her bs in front of yet another forum.

Gives her a chance to depose the players and half of Duke. And it arguably waives the definitive finding of innocence the players have for a circus forum in a state with judges that were happy to enable to worst the state and Mangum had to offer.

(I know the players could move to have issues determined, but in that state I'd be worried about the normal judge's ability to rule on such a motion; they'd deny it in favor of a trial).

Mangum is like Cindy Sheehan or Tawna Brawley. Not worth talking to or suing.

Anonymous said...

Where does $26 million shystress Jamie Gorelick of Fannie Mae looting fame fit into this picture? I read where she's now representing Duke against the Lacrosse hooligans.

Do I smell some political shananigans in the works?

After all, for Franklin Raines to "cook the books" for years at Fannie Mae to boost his ill-gotten gains from Fannie to $90 million prior to its collapse, coupled with the fact that he's not in jail for same is nothing short of astounding!

Gorelick is being brought in to work some more of the "magic" that allowed she and Raines to "skate away" from Fannie with $26 million and $90 million respectively, leaving behind a stinking corpse in dire need of a bailout.

Hope this post sees the light of day!!

2008 GOALS said...

The main reason to NOT go after Precious in civil court is because it would require a huge amount of effort, time, money, etc. and there is absolutely no chance of getting any money back and that's what civil court is usually about.

I emailed Cooper's office and expressed my support for filing criminal charges against her (for the original false reports), but I'm not holding my breath. If the statute hasn't run, it's probably about to.

Anonymous said...

This is the link to Quasimodo's topic on LS called Sympathy for Victoria Peterson:

It's an interesting comparison of the Scottsboro and Duke LAX accusers.


Anonymous said...

What is unique or distinguishing in Mangum's discussion of this as it pertains to the facts of the case and the second hand discussions and accusations made by the DukeGroup88? What were their manipulations of all of Mangum's permutations as they were sequencially put forth by Mangum? Did they put forth as fact many of the things put in evidence by Mangum which have been proven absolutely false? Why have they and Mangum played the roll of cheerleader to lynch mob in this whole sordid affair? Sick or not, and all of them are not stuck dumb with such abolute racist hatered as to be so bigoted that they cannot wind their way pack to the objective truth.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:04 said
"Is there any chance that this ridiculous book stunt might be a red herring, promoted behind the scenes from those Hoaxters in Duke and Durham, in order to divert attention from them to Mangum?

I'd have to point out that the tort being created (at least in theory) by this book starts a whole new clock running for two years to file a suit. It may be advantageous to send them a cease and desist letter (which may have already happened and which they will ignore) and then wait for the book sales to mount and then to file the suit once there is something of value to sue for.

I am not a legal scholar but have seen enough of the legal world to know that silence may be a very dangerous sign for a defendant rather than a good one. It is all a matter of context and knowing what is in the mind of a potential plaintiff.

Anonymous said...

Are Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick both communists?

You bethca!!!

Seriously, with Jamie now on Duke's legal defense "Dream Team", the "magic woman" will make those pesky lacrosse cases disappear like the net worth at Fannie Mae!

Anonymous said...

Now that the evil creature Mangum is back.....I wonder how the special prosecutors and the attorney general feels about being slandered as racists, who committed the crime of paying people off, her filth has now emcompassed many others and she is now rubbing their noses in it. It makes the attorney generals office look like the biggest fools on earth to let her go scott free. Poor Crystal too psycho to be held accountable for destroying numerous lives and and harming so many people, costing the state and the city of Durham so much. Yet she is back again with her so called college degree in....what was that...crimminal law...This spawn of the devil has now thinks to profit on her lies and terrorism on this families. Yet still nothing is done to stop her crimes. Who will be her next victim. Do not think she will stop. I hope this time it is a senator's or congressman's son she goes after. Maybe then the DOJ and the Attorney General will stop her and either put her in a straight jacket or in jail where she can no longer harm anyone else. She is a menace to society. The civil case was just fed the very reason they are filing...because they were harmed and continue to be harmed by the lies and slander. Crystal just ripped open the wound and is rubbing salt in it with dollar signs in her eyes. Never in my life have I seen such pure evil.
The state of North Carolina should be very proud of their elected officials who sit back and do nothing. There is not one noble, courageous elected official who will step up and do the right thing and put an end to this once and for all. I am sickened to see her get away with this without any consequence. What has become of the integrity of truth and justice?

Anonymous said...

The women of North Caroline have learned now that they can cry a false rape and get away with it. They can also then attempt to profit from this false accusation. Any women looking for revenge has just been given carte blanche by the Attorney Generals office that this is acceptable in NC. If bad behaviour is not stopped it continues, if it continues bad behavior becomes the norm. Since this is the third time Crystal has cried false rape and gotten away with it, it will continue. The world is waiting and watching to see what Cooper and the DOJ do about this. If they do nothing, they just had a two bit hooker rub their noses in it. Before the world they look like fools.

Debrah said...

LaShawn Barber weighs in.

Debrah said...

Analyzing fire! Films' strategy.

Debrah said...

This interesting blog discusses Mangum's latest bad move.

Anonymous said...

Ummm...errr...make that Victoria Price, not Peterson in my prior post. And make that incorrect "is" an "are" in the one before that. Ughhhh.


Anonymous said...

Google Mangum in news and marvel at the few articles after the initial flurry. No PR means no invites to promote the book, no honoraria.
Little wonder the lawyers are waiting to see if Ms. Mangum has indeed become old news. JOHN

Anonymous said...

"What has become of the integrity of truth and justice"? It was sacrificed at the alter of Political Correctness. Steve in New Mexico

Anonymous said...


10:02 p.m. - "What has become of the integrity of truth and justice?" and,

10:52 p.m. - "If bad behaviour is not stopped it continues, if it continues bad behavior becomes the norm."

I saw the following quotes earlier today and thought of Durham:

“Don’t expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.” —Calvin Coolidge

“When it becomes dominated by a collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself.” —Fredrich August von Hayek

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” —H. L. Mencken

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” —Chief Justice John Marshall

Durham is only the petree dish. The experiment appears to be about to scale nationally...and we shall get it good and hard.

Anonymous said...

One thing to remember is that Crystal is a grifter, pure and simple. While she is a pathetic person, nonetheless she still is someone who is basically malevolent and dishonest, a sociopath.

Unfortunately, she continues to get away with her lies because everyone feels too sorry for her (or considers her to be so insignificant that they don't want to bother with her). Either way, she is a loser, and in most places she would be just that.

However, given that she made her false accusations in Durham, she was able to attain heroine status for a while. Make those accusations elsewhere, and she is just another liar. But, not in Durham.

Anonymous said...

Altough I agree with Bill Anderson on just about everything, I think he sells Durham short on how much credibilty Crystal gets. As a Durham resident, I can safely say that, except for the first few months of the hoax, there are very few Durhamites (at least those with better than a third grade education), who credit Crystal's thoughts on anything.

Anonymous said...

Although I agree with virtually everything Bill Anderson says, I have to disagree with his characterization of the views in Durham. As a Durham resident, I can assure him that, except for the first five months of the hoax, and except for those with less than a third grade education, no one in Durham believes this woman has any credibility. C. Thomas Kunz

Anonymous said...

First, I want to mention that KC's and Stuart's book Until Proven Innocent received an approving mention in this recent article (a little more than halfway through).

At least one commenter has asked me to speculate on why the lacrosse players' attorneys have refrained from suing CGM for the libelous statements in her new book. I think some others have suggested good reasons, for instance that CGM is "judgment-proof" (meaning she has no money to pay a judgment) and that there's a danger of an "OJ jury". Just off the top of my head, here are a couple of other thoughts:

In ancient day, the damages paid for slander and libel (slander is verbal; libel is written) was based on the social rank and presumed credibility of the offender. The fine for the lowest ranked freeman was a shilling while the penalty for a Duke was the cutting out of his tongue. The old saying, "A lie off a slave's tongue is free", reflects this distinction.

Now, I have never been in a libel trial, but if I recall my law school lessons correctly, libel has four elements:
1. Publication
2. Identification
3. Defamation
4. Injury

Now, I remember a case of classic negligence in which a beer company truck ran over and killed an old man. The defendant was clearly culpable on all elements ... except that it was shown in court that everyone hated the old man, that he didn't work and mooched off his family, and was even mean to kids and small animals. Thus, the court ruled, no legal damages resulted from his untimely death. Victory for the defense. So it may be with CGM: That she has been so completely discredited in this case that her new lies can cause no legally recompensable injury to the plaintiffs.

Given the gravity of her charges, this would be perhaps a surprising finding, but one which the lacrosse players' lawyers will have to at least consider.


becket03 said...

The point has been made that Mangum could use a civil trial as a forum to further besmirch the players, and then perhaps escape with a verdict in her favor from a tainted Durham jury. The point is well taken.

The State of North Carolina is responsible for failing to prosecute Mangum when it had the chance. Ray Cooper preferred to take the politically safe route and mumble something about (paraphrase) "Well maybe she can't help it because she's mentally wacked and really believes her own BS."

We've now seen her at a press conference and read her printed accounts. She's a calculating, wicked b**** looking for a payday with full consciousness of actions. She even has the gall to crow that she "graduated from college with honors," while displaying at best, as she speaks, the workings of a mediocre mind. If she's mentally sick, it's a kind of sickness that's indistinguishable from evil.

Ray Cooper and the state apparatus have a moral obligation to come to the players' aid. They need to find a way to shut Mangum down -- to stop the slander and libel, the press conferences and books -- without dragging the players into the mud pit with her.


Debrah said...

Someone should get a copy of this Hoax of a book---making sure that Mangum autographs it (LOL!)---and send it to Richard Brodhead.

He and his administration certainly were some of her strongest supporters.

Debrah said...

A guy came by today to do a repair and we began talking about the election.

Then he mentioned he was from Durham.

Of course, I had to mention Duke lacrosse.

He said he grew up on Buchanan Blvd. just two doors down from the infamous Hoax residence.

Like most people there, when the news of a "gang rape" was televised, he said most of the people he knew were all for "frying" the Duke athletes.

And like most everyone he and his friends didn't even concern themselves with the race of the people involved.

After race was made an issue and there was such belligerence from Durham's black community, he said that the polarization began and has not healed.

Many residents blame this Hoax for setting back race relations 40 years.

But Mangum and company are yet to pay a price for such needless destruction.

Anonymous said...

Coolege's words make my bones shake in the light of the current election.

Durham is just a microcosm of political correctness run wild in USA.

Eventually, if unchecked, no white person, or person who has worked hard and made some money, will be able to get a fair trial in this country.

Why would anyone want to enable that?

Anonymous said...

Come on, Bill, there are grifters all over the world, and there are race/gender/class folks in every college town and university in the U.S. (probably some even at your college) with whom this type of case would have resonated. Presumably that's why some of the profs who were so critical of the lacrosse team have been been so warmly welcomed in new new jobs at other schools. I'm not defending my city's handling of the case, but I don't think the mindset that you are criticising is limited to Durham.

Ken Duke

Anonymous said...

Why do the players have to sue CGM in NC? I see absolutely no reason why they cannot sue her from where they currently live. Defending a case in a distant location is very expensive. If they sue her, the publisher, etc... from where the young men now live someone will have to spend some money to defend. Unless the book turns out to be a big seller, which I doubt, I would guess the result would most likely be a default judgement as this motley band of thugs would think they could simply ignore the process.

Anonymous said...

"Print-by-demand" is code for "self-published" -- in this case, bet on it, put out by Crystal's pimp (just an allegory - ha!), good ol' Ed Clark.

This answers my previous bafflement, about how or why any REAL publisher, or its lawyer, could ever countenance the promulgation of such blatantly libelous bullshit as the Mangum non-book. Obviously the printer of this work has an iron-clad contract which says, in effect, "Let's make one thing clear, Clark: We are NOT a publisher -- YOU are the publisher. We are just a printing house. You are solely responsible for the content. We will not even proofread it. We will not read it at all. You, repeat YOU, are solely responsible." That's how self-publishing or "print-on-demand" works.

And of course, Clark is not "responsible" in any meaningful sense of the term -- he is a sleazy predator, sucking blood from an idiot and liar. So, the printing-house will claim no liability, leaving the injured parties to seek damages from lowlives like Clark and Mangum.

This means that the so-called publication of Mangum's so-called book carries no imprimatur of any responsible person, unless you include Clark -- an obvious hustler. And I would bet anything (just my opinion!) that Clark will instantly transport any (hopefully tiny) income from this pack of lies, into an offshore account where Crystal will never see a penny of it, no matter what he has told her. What a sick, evil joke this non-book is.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Bill Anderson's most recent comment, but I find it hard to believe that this book will actually help Mangum in the long run. Anyone with the least amount of integrity knows this book is a complete lie.

In my opinion Mangum just made herself unemployable by most companies. Had she quietly gone away, gotten her degree and stayed silent, she might have been able to get a job in the Triangle at a legitimate company. Now she is poisonous.

Her only option now may be to continue stripping or hooking, or to live jobless and penniless in her parent's basement.

In essence she has certified herself as least that's my opinion. Any employer who sees her name on an application in North Carolina will certainly run for the hills.

And if she sees a penny from her "book" then Ralph Nader will be the next President.

Anonymous said...

Well, the false accuser who branded herself with a "B" and accused an Obama supporter of the deed, has just been sentenced to probation, with the condition that she undergo mental health treatments.

Apparently even that was too much for Cooper to assign. (Did North Carolina fail her here?)

So now where is Mangum? Is she a free woman or is she being "used" by her handlers? Is she able to meet with the press minus her her handlers, or is she in effect being held incommunicado like a member of some cult? Does that constitute abuse?

What is her mental status, and why are there no social services to check on this? What concern is the NAACP showing for her now?

Or does no one in Durham care, because suggesting her mental processes are less than 100% healthy would be to cast doubt on her accusations against some Duke students? Is this reverse racism hurting Mangum?

Anonymous said...

The question I have is this: Had the trial of those young men been held in Durham, would there have been an acquittal?

I would say no, as the black jurors and the liberal whites would have had to much pressure on them to convict that at best there would have been a few holdouts for innocent that would have hung the jury. A more likely scenario would have been a jury that would have convicted on a "lesser" charge just so it could be unanimous in something.

Look, it was obvious after a few weeks that the charges were false, but Durhamites elected Nifong, even after the "60 Minutes" expose in October, 2006. And it was not just the black voters. I remember seeing a white Duke professor and his wife being interviewed, and they said they voted "straight Democratic," and that included Nifong.

So, here was a highly-educated man and his so-called intelligent wife being willing to have a corrupt prosecutor drag this thing to trial. What am I supposed to believe? Had Durham recalled Nifong and had there been no rally at NCCU, no "Our Hearts World," no protests and more protests at Duke, and had there been support for prosecuting Nifong and the police and Levicy, I might have a different opinion of Durham.

But for now, it seems to me that this is a city where corruption is the norm, not the exception. I know there are good people there, and many of them post here and on Liestoppers, and I certainly do not condemn those folks. However, it seems to me that the good people are in a distinct minority there.

Remember, Bill Bell and Diane Cattotti, two of the biggest supporters of the Hoax/Frame, were handily re-elected to office by huge majorities. It seems to me that this is prima facae evidence that the vast majority of people there were perfectly happy to see their police department behaving like a bunch of criminals, their officials lying, and millions of dollars spent to frame innocent people. The only expressions of anger I have seen have been the attacks on the lacrosse players for having the audacity to sue Durham.

Anonymous said...



My parents weren't very supportive of me. Before the Duke fiasco, mom and dad only went through the motions of getting behind my hoaxes, insisting instead that I get a nice, legal job like stripper or stripper dispatcher. They told my sister she could grow up to be a doctor or a lawyer, maybe even President. They told me that if I worked hard, I could grow up to be a patient, defendant, maybe even a voter.

My sister had a math tutor, mom and dad got me a criminal post-conviction relief specialist. It was all so unfair -- Why do bad things happen to bad people?


I was picked on unmercifully in school. The popular kids, the jocks, the stinky hippies and the nerds all hated me, and it was all because I lied about everyone. Nonstop. I lied about what they did. I lied about what they said. I lied about what they said they did. How unfair was that? I have a First Amendment right!


My dream is to someday fake my own death. I know that I have set the bar high, too high, some might say, but if I concentrate and apply myself, I just know I can do it. First, I'll need a really big insurance policy ....


Anti-Fan Fiction is Fun! MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Obama and the law

By Thomas Sowell | One of the biggest and most long-lasting "change" to expect if Barack Obama becomes President of the United States is in the kinds of federal judges he appoints. These include Supreme Court justices, as well as other federal justices all across the country, all of whom will have lifetime tenure.

Senator Obama has stated very clearly what kinds of Supreme Court justices he wants— those with "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old."

Like so many things that Obama says, it may sound nice if you don't stop and think— and chilling if you do stop and think. Do we really want judges who decide cases based on who you are, rather than on the facts and the law?

If the case involves a white man versus a black woman, should the judge decide that case differently than if both litigants are of the same race or sex?

The kind of criteria that Barack Obama promotes could have gotten three young men at Duke University sent to prison for a crime that neither they nor anybody else committed.

Didn't we spend decades in America, and centuries in Western civilization, trying to get away from the idea that who you are determines what your legal rights are?

What kind of judges are we talking about?

A classic example is federal Judge H. Lee Sarokin, who could have bankrupted a small New Jersey town because they decided to stop putting up with belligerent homeless men who kept disrupting their local public library. Judge Sarokin's rulings threatened the town with heavy damage awards, and the town settled the case by paying $150,000 to the leading disrupter of its public library.

After Bill Clinton became president, he elevated Judge Sarokin from the district court to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Would President Barack Obama elevate him— or others like him— to the Supreme Court? Judge Sarokin certainly fits Obama's job description for a Supreme Court justice.

A court case should not depend on who you are and who the judge is. We are supposed to be a country with "the rule of law and not of men." Like all human beings, Americans haven't always lived up to our ideals. But Obama is proposing the explicit repudiation of that ideal itself.

That is certainly "change," but is it one that most Americans believe in? Or is it something that we may end up with anyway, just because too many voters cannot be bothered to look beyond rhetoric and style?

We can vote a president out of office at the next election if we don't like him. But we can never vote out the federal judges he appoints in courts across the country, including justices of the Supreme Court.

The kind of judges that Barack Obama wants to appoint can still be siding with criminals or terrorists during the lifetime of your children and grandchildren.

The Constitution of the United States will not mean much if judges carry out Obama's vision of the Constitution as "a living document"— that is, something that judges should feel free to change by "interpretation" to favor particular individuals, groups or causes.

We have already seen where that leads with the 2005 Kelo Supreme Court decision that allows local politicians to take people's homes or businesses and transfer that property to others. Almost invariably, these are the homes of working class people and small neighborhood businesses that are confiscated under the government's power of eminent domain. And almost invariably they are transferred to developers who will build shopping malls, hotels or other businesses that will bring in more tax revenue.

The Constitution protected private property, precisely in order to prevent such abuses of political power, leaving a small exception when property is taken for "public use," such as the government's building a reservoir or a highway.

But just by expanding "public use" to mean "public purpose"— which can be anything— the Supreme Court opened the floodgates.

That's not "a living Constitution." That's a dying Constitution— and an Obama presidency can kill it off.

gak said...

Based on the comments I've seen on the blogs, the book is selling. I've already seen at least 2 or 3 comments saying in essence, read the book it clears things up. I would think that if nothing else, the boys would investigate an injunction against future publishing because of the lies that have been proven to be lies that she restates in the book

Debrah said...

H-S letters:

No repercussions

I am appalled and angry. How can Crystal Mangum profit from her destruction of so many lives? Why is this woman not in jail? She lied. She ruined lives. She caused Durham to look bad in the eyes of the world.

Anyone else reporting false information to the police would be arrested, charged and booked. She should be forced to turn over all of the profits from her book as a partial repayment of the legal fees she instigated by her lies. Why is there no repercussion for what she did?

October 31, 2008

Verbal sex assault

Roy Cooper made a mistake in choosing not to prosecute Crystal Mangum. Had her attack been physical rather than verbal, she would have been prosecuted, jailed and any proceeds of her book would go to the victims. Verbal sexual assault victims are abundantly damaged by perpetrators, and should be protected by the Attorney General. Roy Cooper did a competent review of the lacrosse case, and he generally does a great job for North Carolina citizens.

The North Carolina State Legislature has failed to give law enforcement the tools to protect verbal sexual assault victims. Mangum could only face the minor crime of filing a false police report. The damage that verbal sexual assaults create, is much to extensive to be a minor crime. It should be a felony with long term incarceration.

The medical expert who supported Mangum should face criminal penalties. It would make them more careful. The DNA expert who tried to hide evidence should also be prosecuted.

Victims of verbal sexual assault should have the same protection as any other sexual assault victim.

October 31, 2008

Stuart McGeady said...

On the subject of hoaxes and false accusations, including a reference to the Mangum initiated Duke Rape Hoax, Ann Coulter's latest column: Red Hoax Blue Hoax

Debrah said...

Oh G/D !!!

I think there should be a new law that requires all political candidates to NEVER mention religion as long as they are running for, or occupying, a political office.

I'm so tired of these people trotting out "the Lord' and how they have "taught Sunday school", etc......

Who cares?

The zaniness now going on between Elizabeth Dole and her opponent is tiresome--as well as hilarious.

Debrah said...

No surprise here.

Yet another display of sick unprofessionalism that is so rampant.

The Wilmington Journal has endorsed Roy Cooper's opponent with these instructions to its readers:

And per another office, NC Attorney General, this newspaper has endorsed challenger Robert Crumley over long time incumbent Roy Cooper, though there really is not much new about attorney Crumley positions beyond that he would be a better AG.I

n our opinion, Mr. Cooper lost our vote, and our respect, when he refused to allow a trial to go forth in the Duke Lacrosse rape case, and then declared the three white suspects who allegedly raped a young black female ''innocent.''

Sorry, Mr. Cooper. Attorney Crumley now gets our support.

Anonymous said...

KC, I salute you for running the Sowell opinion piece, even though he exposes the dangers of Obama's appointments to the judiciary. That is the kind of integrity we have come to expect of you, even if it goes against your personal preference and support of Obama.

Sowell's piece is a sobering consideration of what might have happened to the Lacrosse players under an Obama-appointed judge who would rule on his own concept of "fairness" instead of the constitution.


river rat said...

"She caused Durham to look bad in the eyes of the world."

Nope... The folks of Durham and Duke did that for themselves.....and CONTINUE to do so.

Going after this nappy headed Ho is a dead end street - going after the City and Duke is where the payoff will come from....

Ultimately -- the folks who REALLY made the hoax possible - will pay.
Durham and Duke head up that list...

Crystal - has been and will remain a sad little heap of toxic garbage to be avoided... Left alone, she will compost down and end up as worm excrement.....