Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum

Byline: | Category: Uncategorized | Posted at: Thursday, 12 April 2007

I started this post last night, but got sidetracked tracking all things Coble.  It still has the original name.  Fresh off another repetitively redundant post, I even began this one with the same concept in mind:  make certain that people know who she is.

This is what I was going to write–almost exactly:

She must be denied anonymity because she makes a mockery of the very policy of granting anonymity to rape accusers. We do not publish their names so that they will not fear public exposure. But people who are tempted to do the monstrous thing Mangum did should fear public exposure.

They should be terrified of it.

They should have nightmares about it.

They should be given no encouragement whatsoever to believe they can launch a nuclear weapon at someone’s reputation and escape unscathed.

I have watched four people be bullied by unscrupulous hacks:  three anonymous lacrosse players and a lovable and low-key blogger.

Those who did this to them–who used a legal sledge hammer to swat anonymous flies, deserve to be named so that all the world knows who they are.

Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum

Read the whole thing.


Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery (but a bit over the top)
What Imus did was worse (so preposterous you have to read)

2nd UPDATE: 

Be sure to read the comments about Rape Shield Laws here and here.  Add your own thoughts on the subject.

Share this post:

13 Responses to “Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum”

  1. Chris Wage Says:

    Sorry, I couldn’t get past the first 3 paragraphs:

    Yesterday, the attorney general of North Carolina came forward and flatly declared the three young men “innocent of these charges.”

    That means their accuser is a liar.

    Actually, no. It doesn’t. The legal process determined the evidence insufficient to prove guilt. They don’t prove innocence. A verdict of not-guilty/dismissal of a legal case does not “mean their accuser is a liar”. Nice try, though.

    There’s actually a formal fallacy in this logic, I think — I just can’t pin it down. Affirming the consequent, maybe?

  2. bob Says:

    Chris, You are “technically” correct. Legally, the question is guilt or not-guilt. Innocence is not a possible outcome. Innocence lost is just another reason why her lie is so abhorrent.

  3. Chris Wage Says:

    You don’t know that she lied.. It’s not a technicality, it’s the truth. It’s necessary for them to be proven not guilty for her to be a liar, but it’s not sufficient (the other necessary half being proof of her dishonesty).

    It’s just as dangerous to have this mob-mentality rage towards anyone that would dare accuse someone of something — because it discourages the airing of grievances for fear of retribution due to this sort of flawed logic. *Particularly* with something so vile and rife with under-reporting/prosecution as rape. This guy’s article may as well have been titled “that little lying bitch”, because that’s the exact tone he conveys. It’s contrary to our ideal of open, honest justice.

  4. Chris Wage Says:

    And, incidentally, I think the post you linked to in your update makes my point more strongly than I could. In that post, she’s called a “vicious, filthy, lying whore”, a “sow”, a “lying, thieving, malicious whore”, a cunt, a “nappy-headed whore”, and so on.

    It calls for her to be “hung out to dry” (which is an interesting choice of words, considering how many times he points out that she is black).

    This is vile and sickening, to me. Beyond the racist and misogynist overtones, it’s concrete evidence that this sort of rage would discourage justice in crimes like these. If you had a daughter who was raped, would you want to risk her being subjected to the sort of vile hatred on display over there?

    I’m disappointed to see that you even read such crap, much less agree with it.

  5. bob Says:

    Chris, Judge me by what I write, not by what I read. Secondly, you are right about it being way over the top.

  6. Slartibartfast Says:

    One clarification. The AG in North Carolina went out of his way to value-add his statement. He did NOT say “there is insufficient evidence”, he said specifically “no crime was committed”. He even emphasised and repeated those words. If you’d like, I’ll link to his statement. He wanted to make it clear that “no crime was committed”. It’s an important distinction.

    I’ve known her name for over a year. (I think I know more about this case than is healthy). That being said, I do not like the idea of vindictively throwing her name out there, for two reasons. One, she’s mentally ill (this has been documented, and confirmed by her family). And two, she may have lied, but by being so vindictive toward her, we might be discouraging future victims.

    It’s kind of like the first amendment: yes, we have to suffer idiots, but it’s for the greater good. So, let her hide behind the rape shield laws. The larger issue is too important.

    She has her own demons to deal with. Mike Nifong is going to get his just desserts. The biggest injustice here is that Duke’s president still has his job, Nancy Grace has not publicly apologised, nor have the “community” leaders, or the students, academics, and columnists who made the players’ lives a living hell.

    What we had here (and I’ve known this for a long time), was a dispute over payment, a mentally ill girl who cried rape to avoid the drunk tank, a prosecutor running for reelection in a minority district, and the usual biases inherent on college campuses in your various “studies” departments. The perfect storm.

    I know it seems weird, but i find the accuser to be way down on the blame scale. Everybody saw what they wanted to see.

    Leave her alone.

  7. Chris Owens Says:

    Indeed filing a false police report is a crime in the state of North Carolina (only a misdemeanor, though, it looks like). Although if they wanted to get serious, they could also charge her with felony obstruction. But it looks like the DA has said he will not file such charges for whatever reason.

    There’s some speculation in the news this morning that the players may file civil suits though. (which will, of course, not result in anyone being ‘guilty’, only in someone being ‘broke’. Usually both parties, if experience is any indication.)

  8. Chris Wage Says:

    Also, I can’t read this without thinking “His name is Robert Paulsen”

  9. Shoot The Moose Bob, I Understand, But HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND??? « Says:

    […] April 13th, 2007 — Slartibartfast Bob Krumm has decided that it’s important that we know the name of the accuser in the Duke Rape Case. Chris Wage is appropriately outraged (but for the wrong […]

  10. bob Says:


    It is certainly true that Ms. Mangum is not without co-conspirators in this case–chiefly a crooked politician and a corrupt educational establishment–who deserve at least as much scorn because they should know better. But still, I can’t work up pity for her in my heart. Sorry.

    I also am struggling with this whole rape shield law thing. It is certainly well-intentioned.

    It is almost just as certainly an anachronism. I, too, knew Ms. Mangum’s name for months. And for months I was ready to expose her name for the fraud she is. But I didn’t, because I accept the premise of the shield laws. But not everyone else did. As more and more of our news comes from that Army of unleashed Davids purposefully hidden information will be exposed. On balance, that’s a good thing.

    It is also almost certainly unconstitutional, since the courts could not adequately draw the line now that the distinction between media and audience is more unclear than it has ever been. I’m also guessing that most people in support of RSLs would probably balk at absolute enforcement: Would they apply to a blogger? How about a college roommate who sends an email to other sorority sisters “Did you hear what happened to . . .”? Do you charge the aunt who gossips and is overheard? How about bystanders in the courthouse the day of the arraignment?

    Where do you draw the line on who can speak and who can’t?

    You probably don’t. Some will behave irresponsibly, to be sure. But, as you said:

    It’s kind of like the first amendment: yes, we have to suffer idiots, but it’s for the greater good,

    (BTW, my mind is not closed on this subject. I’d love to hear arguments to the contrary. But I’ll caution those who try: You have a very high hurdle to clear with me when you argue for legal censorship.)

  11. barbq_ranch Says:

    Rape shield law doesn’t really apply, since there was NO rape. Unless you consider what was done to the Lacross team).

  12. S-townMike Says:

    Chris, Judge me by what I write, not by what I read.

    You didn’t just read it. You linked and intimated that–but for some of its over-the-top tactics–you agree, concur, or otherwise sympathize. It’s not like Wage went through your library record and found a title you checked out once and strained to marry it to your own views. You linked and suggested some agreement. A former and future candidate for office should be judged for linking to show shared sentiment, but indeed not just for reading, but you weren’t just reading.

  13. Mark Rogers Says:

    Mr. Mike,

    Your moral outrage might have more merit were you not the same blogger who posted an ethics complaint against a member of the Council with an impeccable record of public service without any evidence that she did anything wrong.

    I note you were also raising ethical issues when members of the Council cooperated to appoint someone to the school board who wasn’t in lock-step with your views. As if all elected bodies don’t operate the same way…

    Bob linked to that piece to make a point, nothing more. There is nothing to ‘judge.’