Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“In the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king.”     Erasmus

April 14, 2011

UPDATE: Crystal Mangum’s Boyfriend Reginald Daye Has Died

by Stephen Littau

Just last week I wrote about the false Duke lacrosse accuser, Crystal Mangum being charged with “assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill.” Durham police are now “more than likely” going to charge Mangum with murder since her alleged victim and boyfriend Reginald Daye has died.

Maria White writing for CNN reports:

(CNN) — A man who police say was recently stabbed by the accuser in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse scandal has died, the Durham County, North Carolina, medical examiner’s office confirmed Thursday.

Reginald Daye, 46, died Wednesday at Duke University Hospital as a result of the stabbing earlier this month, Durham police said.

[…]

Mangum, 32, was placed in the Durham County Jail without bond. As of Thursday morning, no additional warrant had been served against Mangum. Her next court date is April 25, officials said.

“The case remains under investigation and we do anticipate upgrading the charges,” police spokeswoman Kammie Michael said. “No new charges have been filed at this time and there is no court hearing scheduled for today.”

Not surprisingly, Nancy Grace hasn’t written a word about this latest chapter of this ongoing saga, neither on blog nor on her Twitter account (though the above story was linked from her blog so I guess I can grudgingly give her some credit for that).

Hat Tip: Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2011/04/14/update-crystal-mangum%e2%80%99s-boyfriend-reginald-daye-has-died/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

13 Comments

  1. Those kids who contracted her to service them are in no less of a situation for this. You try to illustrate this woman for her current deeds, yet you completely ignore the motive for young horny dudes to get a girl to service them, WHICH is what the evidence shows.

    The evidence DOES fail to show any rape, yet it is perfectly clear why Mangum where there on site in the first place. You could trace phone records, ad placements, any very basic detective work to decipher that she was in a certain place with those kids at a certain time, for a certain reason.

    They did not rape her, but some of them wanted to get laid, for payment, and in so doing, they were an engaging in an act of prostitution.

    Now you want to point out what a complete mess and felonious state this woman’s life is? That’s like saying “expel any reason or circumstance of a junkie, because that junkie later went on to do 5 awful acts against society.”

    Yes I know the actual TRIAL was based on her “rape”. And it was a joke, in regards to the rape itself. But she was there for prostitution, and SOCIETY should DEFINITELY look to those kids for that.

    Comment by procopius — April 14, 2011 @ 4:29 pm
  2. I mean this is just for decision-making sake. The decision-making of those accused. They at the very least contracted a prostitute, but we cannot speak of that, and what that shows of their nature??

    Comment by procopius — April 14, 2011 @ 4:31 pm
  3. I’ll put it this way:

    Once any of these smug kids get out engineering or marketing, or whatever school, and try to get good jobs in society:

    “Oh, you were that kid who contracted an unstable prostitute to service your party… and made national news about it……yeah….”

    You as a hiring manager would say NOOOOOOO. Those kids will suffer a prejudice of personal judgement in real life, regardless of the mechanisms of the long dead case. The more well-connected kids will just pick up personal favor jobs arranged by their parents. The End.

    Comment by procopius — April 14, 2011 @ 5:01 pm
  4. Those kids who contracted her to service them are in no less of a situation for this. You try to illustrate this woman for her current deeds, yet you completely ignore the motive for young horny dudes to get a girl to service them, WHICH is what the evidence shows.

    But she was there for prostitution, and SOCIETY should DEFINITELY look to those kids for that.

    Are you trying to suggest that their being accused of rape was their fault and that Crystal Mangum’s current situation is their fault?

    Comment by Justin Bowen — April 15, 2011 @ 3:31 am
  5. Yet another unfortunate victom of hers.This is a result of a culture that poisons young womens minds against men.This woman has a hatred of men.It wouldnt be surprising that she was taught that kind of hatred from an early age.Men are nothing more than objects to her.If she cant get what she wants from them,then she accuses them of rape or she murders one of them and its frightening how many young women think that way.

    Those boys on the lacros team were young and stupid.They made a mistake by hiring a stripper to come to thier party.Not a good choice because strippers are shady and dangerous people.You cant blame them for anything this young woman did.This young lady is to blame for this but not only her.Our culture of gender politics and deception is to blame.

    Comment by callmecrazy — April 15, 2011 @ 10:39 am
  6. There are two immaterial issues at hand in fact, “Justin” :

    1)their rape trial. duh. they didn’t rape her. but, because they were exonerated from rape does not preclude common sense. She was there as a prostitute and everyone knows that. That is why I say that the less monetarily fortunate of the accused are about to suffer in the real world. What intelligent corporation is going to give him a position?

    2) Why is “Liberty Papers” even bringing up this woman’s current life situation to begin with? Does it have bearing on what happened that night? Why are they so focused on her to begin with?

    Comment by procopius — April 17, 2011 @ 2:48 pm
  7. And I mean, this website congratulates itself on the people it has exonerated, yet Steven Littau goes far out his way to demonize this woman for whatever she’s into now AND is far out of the scope of the initial issue…. wtf is that about?

    Liberty Papers contributors need to give disclosure appended to their commentaries. Doug Mataconis has already given everyone a clear reason for this.

    Comment by procopius — April 17, 2011 @ 2:54 pm
  8. @ procopius:

    1. The reason I’m interested in Crystal Mangum since the Duke case has been over is primarily because it seems that she is exactly the kind of person I thought she was. Now it’s entirely possible that Mangum didn’t kill this guy, the wounds could have been self inflicted (we’ll see where the evidence leads).

    2. The MSM doesn’t seem to give a shit because it doesn’t have a story line like the original storyline they were trying to use against the lacrosse players (i.e. poor black single mother who is ‘forced’ into stripping for a living raped by privileged white athletes).

    3. Even if I accept that the players were trying to pay for sex rather than pay for a strip show…BFD. Yeah, I know prostitution is illegal in most places in this free country but it shouldn’t be. IT’S NOBODY’S BUSINESS IF THEY DID!

    4. Would I hire these players if I were in a position to employ them? I don’t know. I wouldn’t hold this episode against them though. Maybe you are an exception but most of us have done some stupid things in our lives, particularly when we were younger. Really, have you NEVER been to a strip club or been to a bachelor party? It’s entirely possible that they were hiring a stripper to strip and nothing more.

    5. There seems to be a mentality in our culture that a woman would NEVER lie about being raped. They can and they do for various reasons. Sometimes its ‘buyer’s remorse’ (i.e. the sex was consensual but the woman later regretted it for whatever reason and decided it was rape after the fact), the woman cheats on her significant other and tries to salvage the relationship by claiming to be raped, or the woman is trying to extort something of value from a person or others who would be sympathetic to her story (which is what I think happened here; Al Sharpton couldn’t wait to help her with her ‘no strip scholarship’). There are likely other reasons I haven’t considered.

    6. You do realize that someone is DEAD possibly due to the very woman who the MSM thought was an innocent victim right? Possible murder charges. This isn’t exactly a parking ticket.

    7. The Liberty Papers has never claimed to have “exonerated” anyone. We simply joined in an effort to help support an organization (The Innocence Project) that has. I for one am quite proud of that.

    8. Why does Stephen Littau (note: spelling) go out of his way to ‘demonize’ this woman? I don’t know, maybe it’s that I don’t take to kindly to individuals who make false accusations against others for charges as serious as rape. If these young men hadn’t had the good fortune of having wealthy parents, they may well have been locked up for a long time with their names forever ruined. How many men are now sitting in prison now because some woman lied about being raped?

    9. What sort of disclosure do you need from me? This is my personal opinion of this lousy piece of trash Crystal Mangum. I think I have explained my reasoning.

    Comment by Stephen Littau — April 17, 2011 @ 9:41 pm
  9. but, because they were exonerated from rape does not preclude common sense. She was there as a prostitute and everyone knows that. That is why I say that the less monetarily fortunate of the accused are about to suffer in the real world.

    Whew. At least we’re in agreement that women need to suffer the consequences of their stupidity when they’re raped because they’re strippers and prostitutes, hang out in dangerous neighborhoods, and get drunk at parties.

    Comment by Justin Bowen — April 18, 2011 @ 5:02 am
  10. Steven:

    On drugs, and prostitution, I am in 100% agreement with how you wish the legal world WOULD be.

    Now let me snap you back into reality. These kids got Mangum over to the location for prostitution. They not only broke the law on the books, but they had not presence of mind to know who they were in the prostitute’s mind (a bunch of filthy rich really young white kids; basically a legal goldmine).

    Be they young, be they whatever. They went ahead and made the idiotic decision.

    months later and dozens of national headlines later, their family lawyers get them off.
    ————————————————

    And that’s where real life will begin for the less fortunate kids. You see, where **I would agree with you** on hiring any one of these kids for my major corporation, that IS NOT how a major corporation sees it. They look for compromise-ibility in a position candidate. and, even if you the hiring manager, fully agrees with the philosophy of a kid’s past, the corporation most definitely DOES NOT. they actually do diligence on every candidate’s past. they don’t want an employee making any headline of any kind, with a reporter saying “oh btw he was part of that national prostitute thing years ago. he got off, but still..”

    and to a hiring manager, it shows the lack of presence of mind of the candidate to make crucial decisions without exposing himself to undue risk.

    no, without connections, that kid is a round “NO”. the more well off kids will get good jobs anyway. hell, maybe the whole gangs’ families will pool together and ensure that the whole gang gets nice jobs anyway. grand.
    ————————————————–

    you know, i’d actually feel a whole hell of a more with you, had you picked someone trying to scam a family or a group of kids, who had a lot less money and stature to stave off this sort of thing. this, this just feels more than empty. i have no sympathy for either her, or the kids.
    ————————————————–

    about lying about rape, i am in agreement with you, in regards to a case with no proof. i already said there was no rape. not in my eyes, seeing the evidence given by the case at least.
    ————————————————–
    i spelled your name correctly the first and only time i’ve mentioned it.
    ————————————————–
    in a perfect world, no one would have cared why Mangum was there in the first place. unless actual rape had taken place.

    in the correct world, prostitution would never been an issue. neither would any drugs, imagining that drugs were there. but this isn’t about “What should be.” it’s about “what is”.

    Comment by procopius — April 18, 2011 @ 5:25 pm
  11. @ procopius, nope, got it wrong again, Stephen’s name that is. Damn, you can’t even get that right. I’ll get back to your comments shortly.

    Comment by Aimee — April 18, 2011 @ 6:32 pm
  12. You see, where **I would agree with you** on hiring any one of these kids for my major corporation, that IS NOT how a major corporation sees it. They look for compromise-ibility in a position candidate. and, even if you the hiring manager, fully agrees with the philosophy of a kid’s past, the corporation most definitely DOES NOT. they actually do diligence on every candidate’s past. they don’t want an employee making any headline of any kind, with a reporter saying “oh btw he was part of that national prostitute thing years ago. he got off, but still..”

    They’ll always have a home in academia, where a person’s past is completely irrelevant.

    Comment by Justin Bowen — April 19, 2011 @ 5:53 am
  13. And if not academia, there’s always politics!

    Comment by Stephen Littau — April 19, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML