Michael Gaynor
April 30, 2007
Duke case: My conclusions on that Summary of Conclusions
By Michael Gaynor

I have read and reread the North Carolina Attorney General's Summary of Conclusions with respect to the Duke case and concluded that Attorney General Roy Cooper's decision not to prosecute false accuser Crystal Gail Mangum has much more to do with politics than with justice and North Carolina's crimina justice system remains fundamentally flawed.

Yes, the North Carolina State Bar is moving against Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Michael B. Nifong and he will be punished, perhaps not as severely as he should (what's the right punishment for trying to send three innocent young men to prison for thirty years each?).

But false accuser Crystal Gail Mangum got a pass from the North Carolina Attorney General.

But for her, Mr. Nifong would not have been tempted.

And she is still claiming to be a gang-rape victim.

The Summary states: "In agreeing to accept the cases, [Attorney General Cooper] promised a new review of the evidence and additional investigation, and that 'the path that these cases travel will be lighted by the law and the evidence alone."

Reality: Ms. Mangum will not be prosecuted because Attorney General Cooper does not want to offend North Carolina black voters.

Attorney General Cooper suggested Ms. Mangum really believes her false and contradictory claims and admitted that racial considerations affected his decision.

Make no mistake: trying to frame innocent folks is much, much worse than declining to prosecute a false accuser because she is black.

But, Attorney General Cooper is not a fair and objective minister of justice whose decisions are based on "the law and the evidence alone."

Like the original Tawana Brawley, Tawana Brawley Two will not be prosecuted for filing a false report.

That's Democrat politics still at work.

I invite you to read the Special Prosecutors' Meeting With the Accusing Witness section of the Summary, set forth below:

"The special prosecutors met with the accusing witness a number of times and questioned her about inconsistencies that existed at the time the Attorney General's office accepted the case, as well as other inconsistencies that had arisen since then. This was apparently the first time these questions of inconsistencies had been asked formally.

"In meetings with the special prosecutors, the accusing witness, when recounting the events of that night, changed her story on so many important issues as to give the impression that she was improvising as the interviews progressed, even when she was faced with irrefutable evidence that what she was saying was not credible. The accusing witness attempted to avoid the contradictions by changing her story, contradicting previous stories or alleging the evidence had been fabricated.

"During the March 29, 2007 interview of the accusing witness by the special prosecutors and SBI investigators she made several new statements that she had never made before including:

1. She was not with 'Nikki' when the 911 call regarding the racial comments outside 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. was made;

2. She and 'Nikki' left 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in 'Nikki's' car at 11:50 p.m.;

3. She and 'Nikki' rode around for an hour after leaving the house;

4. Evans and Seligmann threw her onto the back porch after the alleged assault;

5. Evans, Seligmann and Finnerty kicked her in the neck while she was on the back porch after the alleged assault;

6. Ten party attendees assaulted her in the back yard by pushing her around;

7. Evans and Finnerty put her in 'Nikki's' car.

"Verified and credible photographic, documentary and testimonial evidence contradicts each of these seven statements.

"In addition to these new statements, the accusing witness made other statements to the special prosecutors during the interview on March 29, 2007 that raise doubts about her credibility concerning the events on the night in question.

"For example, the accusing witness admitted she feigned unconsciousness during the early morning hours of March 14, 2006, She claimed she arrived at the parry at 11:10 p.m. and dancing started shortly thereafter. When shown credible photographic evidence to the contrary, she claimed that the pictures had been altered, She stated that they danced in a bedroom not the living room. When confronted with credible photographic evidence to the contrary, she claimed Duke paid someone to alter the photos. She routinely denied she made various earlier statements that were attributed to her by law enforcement officials. She denied that she had made statements attributed to her in medical reports both the night of the alleged attack and in the ensuing days. The accusing witness claimed that the photograph of her on the back porch at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., time-stamped at 12:30 a,m. and in which she is smiling broadly, is a picture of her arriving at the party. When the special prosecutors pointed out that she was wearing only one shoe, she persisted in her position that the picture was taken when she arrived at the house.

"In the same interview, the credibility of the accusing witness's ability to identify the alleged attackers was further called into doubt. When asked how she could recall with such certainty who allegedly attacked her she claimed she was good at remembering faces. When the special prosecutors brought Officer Gwen Sutton of the Durham Police Department into the interview room, the accusing witness claimed she did not know Officer Sutton and had not seen her before that day. Officer Sutton had spent more than five hours with the accusing witness during the early morning hours of March 14, 2006.

"Similarly, when the special prosecutors asked her about her behavior during the party that suggested impairment, the accusing witness stated that she was dizzy and fuzzy when the two women began dancing that night. She said she was dizzy after the alleged assault, and that was why she was stumbling in the backyard. When asked how she could be certain of her identifications of her attackers, she said she was dizzy when the dancing started, she 'woke up' in the bathroom, and then was dizzy afterward.

"In a meeting with the special prosecutors on April 4, 2007 the accusing witness demonstrated unsteady gait, slurred speech and other mannerisms that were consistent with behaviors observed by numerous witnesses who were at the party the night in question and confirmed through a video taken that night. The special prosecutors confirmed that the accusing witness had taken Ambien, methadone, Paxil and amitriptyline, for which she had prescriptions, prior to meeting with the special prosecutors that day."

A criminal justice system that discriminates on the basis of color or race is a disgrace.

© Michael Gaynor

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Michael Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Michael Gaynor: Click here

Latest articles

April 13, 2016
Former SCOTUS clerks Wendy Long v. Gregory Diskant disagree about the Senate's advice and consent power


April 11, 2016
Krauthammer's personal disdain for Trump skewed his view of Wisconsin primary results a bit


April 4, 2016
Sensitive Megyn Kelly disses fellow Fox News stars


March 31, 2016
Megyn Kelly ignores key facts to champion faux victim Michelle Fields' bogus criminal battery charge


March 22, 2016
Glenn Beck's pathetic attention-seeking open letter to Donald Trump


March 17, 2016
Trump wins 5 of 6, Cruz loses 6 and helps Kasich finally win one by underperforming


March 14, 2016
Shame on Trump's Republican rivals for blaming his campaign for the violence in Chicago


March 12, 2016
To Fox News: Give Sean Hannity the 9 PM slot back and focus on presidential eligibility


March 10, 2016
New York Times' David Brooks rejected as Donald Trump triumphs yet again


March 7, 2016
"True conservatives" support Donald Trump, because Clinton judicial appointments would "fundamentally transform" the United States notwithstanding the Constitution instead of making it great again


More articles

 

Alan Keyes
Why de facto government (tyranny) is replacing the Constitution (Apr. 2015)

Stephen Stone
Will Obama be impeached now that Republicans control both houses of Congress? (Nov. 2014)

Cliff Kincaid
Cruz thwarts hostile takeover of the GOP

Gina Miller
Truth about MS Religious Freedom Protection Act

Susan D. Harris
It's the little things: Remembering Western Civilization

Tom DeWeese
Time to make candidates face the real issues threatening American freedom

Jerry Newcombe
The high price of freedom

Lloyd Marcus
Bill Clinton: 'Bout time Dems tell the truth about BLM

Bryan Fischer
Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams: hypocrites and bigots

Judie Brown
Aborted babies incinerated?

Jim Kouri
State Dept. finally turns over Huma Abedin/Susan Rice Benghazi files

Michael Gaynor
Former SCOTUS clerks Wendy Long v. Gregory Diskant disagree about the Senate's advice and consent power

A.J. Castellitto
A new way to be human

Cliff Kincaid
Who is the biggest demagogue of them all?
  More columns

Cartoons


Michael Ramirez
More cartoons

RSS feeds

News:
Columns:

Columnists

Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Jamie Freeze Baird
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites