Democracy Durham

Note to Anonymous

2011-05-27T07:18:00.001-04:00

Dear Anonymous:

Thanks for the comment. I sent it to your mother and she's says you're grounded for being a naughty boy!

Note To Malek

2011-04-17T07:40:00.003-04:00

Thank you for your comments. Please leave your contact information for me at the comments section. The information won't be published since I moderate this site.

The Night They Drove 'Ole Dixie Down

2011-04-16T15:26:00.045-04:00

___________________________________________________ .
April 16, 2011. Click Arrow for Podcast
___________________________________________________ This week is the 150 year anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War. If you think "The Recent Unpleasantness" WASN'T about slavery (it was!) you aren't the only one. After you listen to the podcast you should check out Keith Olberman's take on it.

When I was a kid there was one black kid in my whole school. As I remember it his parents were northerners. He came home with me on at least one occasion and I remember that it got back to my mom (who of course already knew) that I was hanging with this guy after school. This was about 1968 or 69. Brown v Board of Ed was passed in 1954 so this was about a dozen years later and our town had successfully resisted implementing integration up to that point. The next two years saw bussing begin to be used to integrate the schools. White folks weren’t happy but I was lucky enough to have parents who weren’t racist and who actually did their part to help integration work. We, as a family, were intimately involved in what were called “Charettes”. It’s a French word that we were told meant a “sit down” a “discussion” a “meeting of the minds”. These “Charettes” were held at schools all over town and were a place where the adults (black and white – there weren’t any Hispanics to speak of in Durham at the time) could hash out the mechanics of integration as well as talk about their fears about the process.

It was during this time that I remember first hearing that the Civil War had not been about slavery at all. The son of the local leader of the Klan explained that it was about “states rights” . The right of the states to leave the union if they wanted to. We had studied the Civil War in history class. It seemed strange to me even then that someone would argue that the war had nothing to do with slavery. I remember feeling like I’d been hit in the gut the first time I fully realized what slavery was. I thought about a slave, Jim from Huck Finn is who I pictured. I thought of him being whipped and sold down the river far away from his family. I thought about how he must hate the people who whipped him, who branded him, who made him work hour from sun up to sun down. If he tried to run away and was caught he was flogged until his back was bloody and often had an ear or a finger cut off as punishment. This is what slavery was and even as a kid I knew it. So, when someone told me that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery I found it hard to believe. I mean, here were all these black folks who were clearly not happy about being slaves so how could it be that the war wasn’t at least partly about slavery. But no, the white folks I knew, most of them, insisted not only was the war NOT about slavery but it WAS about how Southerners were being victimized by Yankees. This really sounded fishy to my ten year old mind. The slaves weren’t rising up, they were in fact, not that unhappy about being slaves. But the white southerners were up in arms about the price they were getting for cotton? It just didn’t smell right but there wasn’t much I could say – at least not without getting a good smack down. These kids, the sons of the white rednecks, were pretty aggressive and I was put in my place more than once just for being a skinny kid who didn’t really play sports.

As I got older I heard the same argument over and over again. Every few years there would be a flap about some state flying the Confederate battle flag and refusing to take it down. Or there’d be a black guy killed by a bunch of drunken rednecks but it always turned out that the black guy somehow deserved to be killed and the rednecks were just protecting themselves or their girlfriends. Black folks, I was told, were poor because they were lazy. That too seemed a strange thing to say because everytime I saw black folks they were working pretty hard, sweating in the sun, driving trucks, mowing lawns, sweeping floors and cleaning toilets. It never set right with me to say they were lazy when I could see, with my own eyes, how hard they worked and at jobs that I knew didn’t pay very well. Then, as the years went by and I learned more about slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, and the struggle for civil rights, I realized that it was all just one big lie. But I had grown up in a country where these were the stories we told ourselves in order not to have to look at the true history of racism and slavery and exploitation. We are still telling those same stories today. The folks who are celebrating the beginning of the Civil War in Charleston, the ones who dress up in Confederate uniforms, they don’t go to civil rights marches on the weekends they aren’t reenacting the lost grandeur of the Confederacy. No, they know enough nowadays not to flaunt their revisionist history. I wouldn’t accuse most of them of being outright racists. However, they ARE in league with the true racists to the extent that they create the context in which the more virulent forms can take root. Public school integration never worked because it was never really tried. Look at what is happening today over in Wake County.

We have yet, in this country, to have a true reckoning about our shared history. Telling the truth about the causes of the Civil War sounds, to me, as about as good a place as any to begin.

Imperialism and Egypt’s “democratic transition”

2011-02-07T07:21:00.004-05:00

Alex Lantier -

The talks taking place between the Egyptian regime of President Hosni Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the National Association for Change of Mohamed ElBaradei are a treacherous exercise in political duplicity. Their purpose is to confuse and suppress the revolutionary movement against the Mubarak regime, stabilize bourgeois rule in Egypt, and preserve the country as a reliable instrument of the interests of US imperialism throughout North Africa and the Middle East.The Obama administration’s support for these talks, brokered by Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman under the cynical label of a “democratic transition,” is as reactionary as it is predictable. Once again, Washington’s rhetorical tributes to democracy are being exposed as hypocritical lies. The real aims of the Obama administration were revealed in the open declaration of former Ambassador Frank Wisner—who had been sent to Cairo to meet with Mubarak—that the dictator was playing a critical role. All the efforts of the administration are concentrated on orchestrating a fraudulent “transition” that will safeguard US interests in Egypt.

The reactionary character of these US plans is exposed by the man who has been chosen by Mubarak and Washington to preside over the “transition” —Vice President Omar Suleiman. This is a man who is implicated and has personally participated in the worst crimes of the Mubarak regime. He has, literally, blood on his hands.

The CIA’s point man for outsourcing torture to Egypt, Suleiman personally beat Mamdouh Habib, an Australian citizen falsely accused of terrorism in Pakistan and shipped to Egypt to be tortured. Habib was cleared of all charges and released in 2005.

Suleiman also helped the US manufacture false evidence to justify its illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. Before that war, he oversaw the transfer of Ibn Sheikh al-Libi from US to Egyptian custody; once in Egypt, al-Libi was tortured until he agreed to say that Iraq was giving chemical and biological weapons to Al Qaeda. This false testimony made its way into US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s 2003 report to the UN, calling for war.

The political myths of the “war on terror”—the claim that the key feature of the Middle East was the struggle between the values of “democratic” Western governments and Islamists like the Brotherhood—stand exposed by these negotiations. In fact, the main conflict is between the entire ruling class and the working masses, who have emerged as the main revolutionary force.

Originally, the reason given for US backing for dictatorships and monarchies throughout the Middle East was that authoritarian rule was a necessary evil in the struggle to limit Islamist influence. Now, Washington is treating the Islamists as a necessary evil in its struggle to maintain what it sees as a more fundamental objective: the maintenance of an authoritarian regime upon which Washington can rely.

The class reasons underlying this policy were laid out in a New York Times article that held up Turkey as a “map for Egypt.” The Times wanted the Mubarak regime to emulate the Turkish military’s support for the “dynamic private sector” created by the Islamist AKP government’s “opening” and deregulation policies. These policies have turned Turkey into a major cheap-labor export economy. The Times also cited Turkey’s quiet but good relations with Israel, a token of Turkey’s essential acceptance of US imperialism’s dominance in the Middle East.

With reports showing that half of Egyptian workers survive on wages of $2 or less per day, global investors doubtless hope to make fortunes from further “opening” Egypt, as long as the military regime and its yellow unions can suppress the working class. That is, Egypt is to be maintained as a reliable ally of the US military, a well-policed source of cheap labor, and a bastion of political reaction.

This underscores the semi-colonial character of US relations with Egypt, a country that is under the thumb of global imperialism.

Amidst all the political maneuvering and posturing, the concerns and interests of the Egyptian working class, peasantry and youth count for nothing. Not a single one of the social and political concerns that fueled the mass protests will be addressed. The protestors sought fundamental social changes: the dismantling of the police state, the ending of the dominance of major landowners in the countryside, and the raising of wages and living standards. The social forces with an interest in such change—the workers, the oppressed rural masses of Egypt, and the youth—will get nothing from these negotiations, except a cruel betrayal. The torturers will remain in power, protecting the strategic interests of US imperialism, the investments of international capital, and the wealth of the Egyptian ruling class.

The International Committee of the Fourth International states unequivocally: The interests of the Egyptian working class and the oppressed masses can be achieved only through the struggle for power on the basis of a socialist program. There is no other path to genuine democracy. Thus, there is a critical need to build independent organs of popular representation and to overcome the vacuum of political leadership—to pose an alternative to the Egyptian bourgeois state machine and the negotiations of Suleiman.

Alex Lantier - WSWS

2010-12-29T09:45:00.006-05:00

Durham-in-Wonderland Supports This Blog : Thanks KC!

2010-12-24T07:44:00.008-05:00

(Since I wrote this post I found out that Professor Johnson wrote a book called "Until Proven Innocent" about the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case)

KC Johnson, of the Durham-in-Wonderland blog is responsible for much of the admittedly meager readership of this blog. I have to thank him for reading what I have to say and taking my words seriously enough to comment on them on his blog.

I'm honored that a professor at the CUNY Graduate Center at Brooklyn College would care what I have to say. I don't want to appear too falsely modest but I don't think I'm really important enough to warrant all this attention.

One point that I feel I need to correct: About eight or ten years ago I was the President of the Durham People's Alliance. I enjoyed my work with them until the elections cycle when the Political Committee chose to endorse the exact same candidates as the Republican leaning Friends of Durham PAC. That's when I split with them because they weren't nearly the radical leftists they pretend to be.

Also, for the readership of Durham-in-Wonderland, I encourage you to read Democracy Durham for yourselves whenever you see it referenced by Prof. Johnson. The good professor and I have very different views of things and a reading of the original will often give you a quite different understanding than what you will get from simply reading Prof. Johnson's interpretation.

Anyway, thanks again for spreading the news about Democracy Durham.

Blog On!

Steven Matherly

Click here to go to Durham-in-Wonderland

Attention All Crystal & Nifong Haters!

2010-12-21T19:29:00.007-05:00

I was re-reading some of my posts because, well to be honest, I just like the sound of my own voice and my own words even if they are just in my head.

While I was reveling in what a sound foundation I got in expository writing something just jumped out at me.In the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case all you Crystal/Nifong haters were (and still are) frothing at the mouth about the injustices supposedly visited on those Lacrosse guys. How's this for irony then; we are on the same side of the issue this time. Here Crystal got the short end of the stick in her trial. The justice system failed her. She may have eaked out a victory on the first degree arson charge but it was hard fought and her attorney, Mani Dexter, deserves our thanks for her hard work. The cops lied on the stand in this case. I'm not just saying that - you can read the transcript of the trial and you will see that one cop said one thing and another directly contradicted the first cop. One of them was lying! My money is on "Officer" Tyler as the liar. Judge Jones never met a cop he didn't think was just peachy keen and squeaky clean. Every time he had a chance he ruled in favor of the prosecution and the police. He even said "the police are not going to be put on trial". Why not, if they say something happened then the defense should be able to attack the truth/non-truth of what they said.

Here's the fun part! This is what you guys have been saying about Nifong. You say he lied! You say he ruined the Lacrosse players by using the power of his office to twist the facts. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? Howdy, friend!

I just know I'm going to get a flood of emails congratulating Crystal (and her supporters) on her semi-win in this case.

I can't wait!

Steven MatherlyMOUS

NOTE TO READERS: NORMALLY I DON'T PUBLISHER STUFF COMING FROM "ANONYMOUS BECAUSE HE WON'T IDENTIFY HIMSELF. HOWEVER, SINCE I KNOW THAT HE IS REALLY KC WHATHISFACE FROM THE DURHAM-IN-WONDERLAND BLOG I THOUGHT I'D PUT IT UP. BESIDES, THERE'S BEEN FAR TOO MUCH REASONABLE THOUGHT ON THIS BLOG RECENTLY I THOUGHT I'D SPICE IT UP A LITTLE!

KEEP THOSE CARDS AND LETTERS COMING, FOLKS.

STEVEN MATHERLY

Next Time It Could Be You

2010-12-21T08:26:00.000-05:00

Dear Faithful Readers:

Many of you read this blog to feed your hate of Crystal, poor folks, black folks, and the threat you feel they are to your world. This post is dedicated to you.

This trial has been illustrative of a great many things that are wrong with our justice system. It is one thing to say that the courts favor the wealthy and discriminate against the poor and it is quite another to see an example of it unfold before your eyes.

I know you won't believe this but I'm going to say it anyway. I have a great deal of respect for our judicial system. I have seen it work. I know that there are honest, dedicated, and generally underpaid, people who toil in the offices and courtrooms across this nation that don't get the recognition and respect they deserve. Unfortunately, there is an institutional bias in our judicial system that turns the work of these people into a force for inequality and oppression. That bias is for the police and against the accused.

Once you have been accused and brought before a judge you have an uphill battle to prove your innocence. The idea that one is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty is the only thing that keeps our system from mirroring the most corrupt and abusive systems worldwide. Even a wealthy person has to struggle to prove his/her innocence albeit with more resources at their disposal than most. The presumption of innocence is outweighed by the belief that you must have done something wrong or the police wouldn't have arrested you.

The police have a hard, thankless, dangerous job and are often poorly remunerated. A great many cops supplement their salaries as private security guards for stores, restaurants, and bars. This brings their salaries up to a reasonable level but it puts a great strain on them.

Poverty has been criminalized in this country for at least two major reasons both of which are related to each other. One is that the rich need poor folks to make them richer (class relations) and the other is our history of slavery and race based oppression. The two dovetail because the descendants of former slaves have been systematically denied access to education and jobs that would have improved their social and economic standing. They are, therefore, overrepresented in the ranks of the poor. So, you have poverty with pigmentation with a great many melanin deprived folks as well.

Vagrancy laws were once common. If you were living on the streets without means of support you were blamed for your poverty and could be incarcerated for having no means of support. That direct an assault on the poor became embarrassing after a while. Vagrancy per se is no longer criminal but everything one must do to survive on the streets is illegal. What were called "hobo camps" or "jungle camps" in the 1930's are routinely torn down by authorities supposedly for the inhabitants own good. Begging, often called panhandling, is severely restricted in nearly all cities and towns.

Those are just the most obvious forms of criminalized behavior by the poor. From there we move up to overcrowding in housing. When too many people stuff themselves into one house because it is the only way to make ends meet by sharing housing expenses. Again, in the name of safety for the poor they are thrown out of their shelters. Then there are all the laws about vehicle safety (tail lights out) etc that the police can and do use to stop and interrogate the poor. These stops often lead to other charges such as driving w/o a license, w/o an inspection sticker, w/o proper insurance, etc.

Although these laws may have some benefit to society as a whole they are onerous the those who can't afford all the fees that go into modern life. The reason that they can't afford them is because of the low wage structure in this country that pays minimum wage or less for many jobs.

So, it becomes a slippery slope. You lose your good paying job so you take a low wage job (or two) at McDonald's or Walmart but you have to have a car to get to work, take the kids to school, get to the free health clinic, etc. But the insurance is too much so you drive without it. Your tail light is out so you get stopped and you are sited for not having insurance. Your license is revoked so you drive without a license because the kids still need to get to school and you still have to get to work. You get stopped again for some petty reason and now you're in real trouble.

The above scenario assumes that you had and lost a good job. What about the folks who never had a good job. What about folks who's parents never had a good job. Think of the accumulation of poverty the way you think of the accumulation of wealth. A poor man passes on to his kids a poor education because the schools in his area are poor. Those kids (with some exceptions) then are unable to get good jobs and their kids continue in poverty.

There are those of you who will say that there has been fifty years of a "War On Poverty" and that the folks who are poor simply haven't taken advantage of Welfare, Food Stamps, etc. Well, yes they have, in fact that is what has kept the top from blowing off the whole situation until now. Those programs provide meager, subsistence rationing for a great many folks but without proper schools and jobs they are simply a very leaky band aid at best.

A great many poor folks carry on life in the public square (on the street). Police can see you when you are on the street. The police aren't going to take the effort to do the investigative work it takes to find the big dealers, the importers, the financiers of drug operations. They are going to go after the folks they see right in front of them as they cruise the poor neighborhoods. So, while crimes are being committed in all neighborhoods it is the poor areas that are under surveillance and that's where the cops are going to catch you for a drug related crime.

So, you have a perfect combination of circumstances for the rise of what has become known as the Prison Industrial Complex. Our prisons are about punishment - not rehabilitation. And they are filled with people who, upon release, have no hope of participating in "normal" society. Their past prevents them from getting nearly any kind of work so they eake out a living on the margins of society and, more often than not, end up in prison again.

(More To Come)

Steven Matherly

The Pernicious Effects Of Power

2010-12-18T16:28:00.012-05:00

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 P rison 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

2010-12-18T12:38:00.004-05:00

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!

2010-12-18T11:10:00.010-05:00

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

2010-12-18T09:09:00.003-05:00

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!

2010-12-16T10:01:00.001-05:00

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

2010-12-16T09:56:00.001-05:00

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

2010-12-15T07:51:00.004-05:00

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?

2010-12-13T19:51:00.001-05:00

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"

2010-12-13T19:28:00.002-05:00

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!

2010-12-12T16:50:00.005-05:00

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

2010-12-11T13:11:00.004-05:00

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

2010-12-11T09:30:00.010-05:00

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!

2010-12-10T07:22:00.005-05:00

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

2010-12-09T18:24:00.001-05:00

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

2010-12-09T07:54:00.004-05:00

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

2010-12-08T18:14:00.002-05:00

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?

2010-12-07T19:42:00.001-05:00

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

DA: Let Them Eat Cake!

2010-12-07T19:10:00.009-05:00

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

2010-12-07T18:46:00.003-05:00

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

2010-12-07T07:41:00.002-05:00

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.

Comments On The Fourth Amendment Question

2010-12-06T08:12:00.010-05:00

When the attorney’s are asking questions of the potential jurors the questions (as much as the answers) can be very revealing.

Ms. Dexter, the defense attorney, for instance asks the following of nearly every prospective judge: (This is an approximation):

“Would you be able to follow the law as it pertains to arson if you knew that one of the elements of the crime of first degree arson was that the building burned had to be one other than the one the accused lived in?”

Similarly there was this question:

Would you be able to follow the law as it pertains to first degree arson if you knew that an element of first degree arson is that the building itself has to be lit on fire?”

I wrote them down as best I could and then I looked up a definition of First Degree Arson in NC:

(This is just something I pulled off the web. I’m looking for more detailed and specific definitions. I anyone has one they think I can use please send me the quote or a link).

Arson was defined at common law as the malicious burning of the dwelling of another, while house burning was burning your own house and endangering the property of others. In most states, arson has been extended to include burning structures besides dwellings, burning your own property for illegal purposes, and damage caused by a fire or an explosion. Now if someone burns his/her home to collect the insurance, since the insurance is higher than the depressed real estate value ,that would be arson. Other examples of arson would be to burn or bomb a place of worship in a hate crime, or burn a building in revenge for a refusal to sell it. If a person burns down his own home as a form of cheap demolition and accidentally sets half the neighborhood on fire, that may or may not be arson, depending on the laws of the state.

It seems from these questions that Ms. Dexter will, in her defense, be focusing on the fact that Ms. Mangum lived at the house that was supposedly burned and since the charge of arson specifically calls for the burning of the house of another person that arson is the wrong charge. In some definitions I have seen it also states that there must be actually fire damage to the house not just smoke damage. If Crystal burned the clothes in the bathtub as she is accused of doing then they will have to prove that parts of the house actually caught on fire not just the clothes in the tub. This is assuming that they can even show that it was Crystal who burned the clothes or that clothes were burned at all.

The defense attorney requested, when she was trying to have the evidence suppressed due to Crystal’s Fourth Amendment Rights having been violated, had the two officers separated so that there would be no question if they were coordinating their testimony. However, it became clear at one point that the male officer caught on to what he needed to say. Ms. Dexter repeated stated that when Crystal told the officers that she was alright and didn’t need their help that they should have left right away. After her questions focused on this for a while the male officer said that at one point they “turned to leave”. He had been under questioning for 45 minutes at that point and had never said anything about even thinking about leaving. To the contrary he and his partner tried to argue that they stayed and were required to stay in order to make sure she was not in any danger. Then all of a sudden the male officer remembers that they had “turned to go” but were stopped by a knock at the door that turned out to be the other party to the fighting, Milton Walker.

All that testimony was given under oath so I assume it can be brought into the main trial. We’ll see if they can keep their story straight.

The Fourth Amendment To The US Constitution

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

VOIR DIRE (vwa deer)

2010-12-05T08:55:00.007-05:00

In American jurisprudence, voir dire is an important part of the jury selection process. During voir dire, prospective jurors are asked a series of questions to determine whether or not they are fit to serve on the jury. Lawyers for both sides and the trial judge may ask questions and dismiss jurors, and it is hoped that the end result of voir dire is an impartial jury which will sit fairly in judgment on the case. In some cases, voir dire may be brief, but in complex or highly publicized trials, it can be a lengthy process

JURY SELECTION BEGINS - SIX JURORS SEATED SO FAR

As of 5:00 pm on Friday, December 3rd, six out of a total of possibly 14 (12 plus a couple of alternates) jurors had been selected in Crystal's trial. Having sat through trials and the Voir Dire process before I expected it to be tedious...and it was. However, as slow as it was most of the time the process in its entirety is interesting.

I didn't count exactly but every fourth potential juror was actually selected by both sides. Interviewing each potential juror took (I'm estimating here) more than an hour. Then there's the absurdly long lunch break from 1:00 pm to 2:30 pm. Then things wrap up right at 5:00 pm or, if they are in the middle of an interview, as soon as they are through with that person.

The Prosecutor, Mark McCullough, asked the standard questions. The one that I always remember is whether the potential juror understands and can hold the state to a standard of proof that is "reasonable doubt" and not something higher like "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

The Defense Attorney, Ms. Mani Dexter, went into excruciating detail about whether a potential juror recognized Crystal and/or her name. All of them did to one extent or another. She then queried each of them on whether they had formed an opinion about Ms. Mangum's truthfulness. She didn't use that word, she danced around it, but that was what she was getting at. She wanted to weed out, I assume, potential jurors who had already formed an opinion about Ms. Mangum's truthfulness. As we all know Crystal has been pillaried in the press for having even dared to accuse those young men from Duke of having raped her. You can imagine that, with the slanted reporting and general hateful rhetoric that has been shown toward her, it is difficult to find someone (despite there never having been a finding of fact in a court of law that she lied) who hasn't been influenced to believe that she lied. No matter your own feelings (and that's all they are, even mine for that matter) about her truthfulness in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case I think it is safe to say that MOST people in the potential jury pool will have something negative to say about Crystal and whether not she is a person who tells the truth. This is important because she has the right to a fair trial (as did those young men from Duke had they gone to court).

At several points Judge Abraham Penn Jones asked the potential juror to step out of the room while he discussed things with the lawyers. One potential juror in particular had a great many ties to Duke - degrees from there, worked there in the past, family members who worked there, child that goes there, etc. Ms. Dexter tried to have this guy excused "for cause". Judge Jones repeatedly refused and Ms. Dexter had to eventually use one of her six "preemptory" challenges. "Preemptory" simply means that she (the prosecution has six as well) has six times that she can choose not to seat a juror for which she doesn't have to even give a reason. The trick is to not use them all up because you never know when you'll need them so Ms. Dexter was loathe to spend one on this guy who, it seemed clear to everyone but the judge, had too many ties to Duke to be unbiased. The gentleman kept saying that he felt he could be impartial and that was good enough for the judge.

This incident and another one lead me to reconsider my initial assessment of Judge Jones. He comes off as serious and thoughtful most of the time but this incident showed his bias toward the state. The other thing that got me thinking was when he was telling a story, something he is prone to do, where he said that he grew up in the segregated south and that he himself believed that police told the truth 99.9 percent of the time. This was in response to a line of questioning by the defense lawyer. I don't know about you but I find that more than a little hard to swallow. He must have been the only black man of his age in the south that the police didn't lie about while interacting with him. The recent cases where people are being released from death row after decades behind bars proves that a good many police do in fact lie. Anyone, of any background, who has had to go to court and deal with police testifying on the stand knows that they invariably "shade" the truth to support the charges they have brought. It is absolute "willful ignorance" on the part of anyone, especially a judge, to say that police don't lie. So, I am rethinking whether or not I can believe that this judge can be impartial. The jury (in my mind) is still out on the subject!

Crystal Mangum's Arson Trial

2010-12-04T15:36:00.004-05:00

Despite what many people in this city, state, and country seem to think Crystal Mangum is a human being, a child of god (for those of you who are religious) and a citizen of this country and, as such, is entitled to a fair trial. Also, Ms. Mangum has never been convicted (or for that matter even been charged) with any crime resulting from her accusations against the Duke Lacrosse players. NC Attorney General Roy Cooper cannot legally declare those young men “innocent” nor can he legally claim that Ms. Mangum’s accusations were/are “false”. The accused in the “Duke Lacrosse Case” were never tried in a court of law and therefore cannot be found innocent or, as the court would have put it, “not guilty”. The events of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case should not intrude on Ms. Mangum’s current legal difficulties but we all know that the mere mention of her name inflames passions in many people’s minds.

Having said all that, it is abundantly clear that there is a lot of ill-will against Ms. Mangum for her role in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case. Nonetheless, in this case, the one in which Ms. Mangum is charged with First Degree Arson (among other things) Ms. Mangum is entitled to the presumption of innocence – no matter how many degrading, insulting, inflammatory, racist, and incorrect statements members of the public may hurl at her on blogs such as this, on television, or in the newspapers.

I happen to think that Ms. Mangum is innocent of these charges. Therefore, as is my right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (that’s the one the guarantees our freedom of speech) I am, by writing this blog, exercising my right to speak out about this case.

I invite the public to engage in (hopefully) civil discussion about this trial. I’ll tell you right now that I set the bar pretty low as to what I consider “civil”. I can usually take a lot of abuse on this and other unpopular topics. However, I do reserve the right to not publish, for any reason whatsoever, anything that might be sent in.