• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Crystal Magnum finds "God"

 
 
 
J

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Jan 31, 2001
Messages
47,187
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Crystal Magnum gave an interview on a web show, according to CNN. In it, she says she lied about the whole thing Duke Lacrosse gang rape thing.

What I find particularly objectionable here is this statement.
article said:
“I made up a story that wasn’t true because I wanted validation from people and not from God,” Mangum said.
Click to expand...
Oh fuck... finding god. Trying to get validation from people? You know... when you are trying to say you are a better person, saying that you launched a witch hunt against three innocent people was for public validation, really sets off the BS detectors.

The interview took place at the North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women, where Mangum is serving time for a 2013 second-degree murder conviction for stabbing her boyfriend.
Click to expand...
Oh... this is what appears to be a push for parole.

Crystal Magnum said:
I want them to know that I love them, and they didn’t deserve that, and I hope that they can forgive me.
Click to expand...
I'm going to barf. What type of self-serving bullshit is that?! You don't tell the people who you tried to get eviscerated and put into jail on a bald face lie... that you "love them". You can ask for forgiveness, but saying that you love them isn't very relevant and really seems to be more about you and not them.
 
GOD is a mental disorder. Sometimes it's more harmful than not but it's always a sign that something is wrong.
 
Crystal Mangum has a long history of violence and erratic behavior, was intoxicated, at times incoherent, and ultimately passed out in the back seat of a car the night of the frat party, has taken a variety of prescription drugs over the years and has reportedly been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and has both recanted and reasserted the claims of rape more than once before. Her unreliability as a witness was known by Mike Nifong, the DA who brought charges, who was using the case to promote his election campaign. Nifong was eventually convicted of hiding exculpatory DNA evidence, lost his job, and was disbarred for his conduct.

Mangum was never charged because her mental health issues makes it difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain what she truly believes at any given time.

Maybe she found a god. Or maybe she found another delusion lurking in her brain.
 
Last edited:
I think it is very likely that she was actually raped, given the intoxication. I think it is even more likely that she does not entirely remember what happened due to the intoxication and mental illness.

I know this is not helpful to anyone but I’ve known women who described being raped, who were clearly traumatized by it but who kept saying it wasn’t really rape—even though they said stop, I don’t want this, get off me, you’re hurting me. Some people just cannot face that what happened to them was rape. It’s part of the trauma and also part of the whole victim blaming thing. No one wants to be thought a victim or to admit that they were unable to fight off an attacker who likely bought them a drink or dinner or drove them home or invited them to a party or are nice looking or that they wanted to like them.

I fully expect to be argued with about this, but I won’t participate. I’m right on this.
 
I found the thread title highly confusing until I realised that 'Crystal Magnum' was a person's name, and not an expensive champagne bottle.

People in jail in the US say lots of daft shit to impress parole boards, and religious daft shit is at the forefront of this. How do you persuade a bunch of hicks that you are now a 'good person'? You tell them you found God.

It shouldn't work, but it does, so candidates for parole would be crazy not to do it. IMO it just demonstrates that they are shameless manipulative liars, as well as being criminals. Which doesn't strike me as a good reason to consider their character to have been improved.
 
bilby said:
I found the thread title highly confusing until I realised that 'Crystal Magnum' was a person's name, and not an expensive champagne bottle.

People in jail in the US say lots of daft shit to impress parole boards, and religious daft shit is at the forefront of this. How do you persuade a bunch of hicks that you are now a 'good person'? You tell them you found God.

It shouldn't work, but it does, so candidates for parole would be crazy not to do it. IMO it just demonstrates that they are shameless manipulative liars, as well as being criminals. Which doesn't strike me as a good reason to consider their character to have been improved.
Click to expand...
Her name is Crystal Mangum, not Magnum. The OP title is misspelled.

As I recall, we had a rather "lively" discussion about this case back when it happened. It would be interesting to re-read that, but I think it was too long ago.
 
bilby said:
I found the thread title highly confusing until I realised that 'Crystal Magnum' was a person's name, and not an expensive champagne bottle.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I had no idea who this person was and at first assumed it was some kind of exotic form of meth.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Crystal Magnum gave an interview on a web show,
Click to expand...
Crystal Mangum. She is neither a bullet nor a condom, and certainly not ice cream.
In it, she says she lied about the whole thing Duke Lacrosse gang rape thing.
Click to expand...
I remember the outcry when the usual suspects - in the media (like Nancy DisGrace), in academia (esp. Duke itself), and even on the predecessor of this forum - insisted that the players must be guilty because they are so white and male and privileged, and she is so black and female. :rolleyesa:
Some even insisted that "something must have happened" even after the case fell apart.

Oh... this is what appears to be a push for parole.
Click to expand...
Yes, I would say so too.
 
Toni said:
I think it is very likely that she was actually raped, given the intoxication.
Click to expand...
Is there any woman that you don't think "was very likely" raped?
I think it is even more likely that she does not entirely remember what happened due to the intoxication and mental illness.
Click to expand...
There was zero evidence found for any rape. Especially not by any lacrosse players or at the house where the party was. There was evidence she had sex that day (i.e. semen on her panties), but that does not mean she was raped (or even that she was intoxicated at the time of the sex).
I know this is not helpful to anyone but I’ve known women who described being raped, who were clearly traumatized by it but who kept saying it wasn’t really rape—even though they said stop, I don’t want this, get off me, you’re hurting me.
Click to expand...
Somebody saying "stop" and other things but then in her mind not classifying it as a rape is very different than a woman like Mangum making up stuff that never happened, and now finally admitting that she lied.
Some people just cannot face that what happened to them was rape.
Click to expand...
And some people just plain lie about having been raped.
Existence of the former does not invalidate existence of the latter.
Existence of the former does not mean Crystal Mangum was "very likely" raped.
It’s part of the trauma and also part of the whole victim blaming thing.
Click to expand...
In this case, the only actual victims were the innocent Duke lacrosse players.
Crystal Mangum was not a victim, she was among the perpetrators (that also include Mike Nifong and the pitchforks-and-torches mob of Duke professors and media figures).
I fully expect to be argued with about this, but I won’t participate. I’m right on this.
Click to expand...
No, you are not. Crystal Mangum lied. Some women lie about rape. That's why we should not automatically believe women, but instead apportion belief to the evidence.
 
thebeave said:
As I recall, we had a rather "lively" discussion about this case back when it happened. It would be interesting to re-read that, but I think it was too long ago.
Click to expand...
The archive exists, but the quote tags got broken during archiving, so reading it is a bit of a pain in the ass.
 
Derec said:
Toni said:
I think it is very likely that she was actually raped, given the intoxication.
Click to expand...
Is there any woman that you don't think "was very likely" raped?
I think it is even more likely that she does not entirely remember what happened due to the intoxication and mental illness.
Click to expand...
There was zero evidence found for any rape. Especially not by any lacrosse players or at the house where the party was. There was evidence she had sex that day (i.e. semen on her panties), but that does not mean she was raped (or even that she was intoxicated at the time of the sex).
I know this is not helpful to anyone but I’ve known women who described being raped, who were clearly traumatized by it but who kept saying it wasn’t really rape—even though they said stop, I don’t want this, get off me, you’re hurting me.
Click to expand...
Somebody saying "stop" and other things but then in her mind not classifying it as a rape is very different than a woman like Mangum making up stuff that never happened, and now finally admitting that she lied.
Some people just cannot face that what happened to them was rape.
Click to expand...
And some people just plain lie about having been raped.
Existence of the former does not invalidate existence of the latter.
Existence of the former does not mean Crystal Mangum was "very likely" raped.
It’s part of the trauma and also part of the whole victim blaming thing.
Click to expand...
In this case, the only actual victims were the innocent Duke lacrosse players.
Crystal Mangum was not a victim, she was among the perpetrators (that also include Mike Nifong and the pitchforks-and-torches mob of Duke professors and media figures).
I fully expect to be argued with about this, but I won’t participate. I’m right on this.
Click to expand...
No, you are not. Crystal Mangum lied. Some women lie about rape. That's why we should not automatically believe women, but instead apportion belief to the evidence.
Click to expand...
Of course she lied. Everyone lies at some point. And she told conflicting stories about what happened so by default, she lied or was mistaken—which is not at all unusual if someone was intoxicated or traumatized or…human. I remember things differently you now than I did at the time they happened. Depending on what we are talking about, my current memory may be more or less accurate. I’m certain the same is true for you and everyone else reading this. It is the nature of memory.

Unfortunately, rape is extremely common. At least 1 in four women is raped in her lifetime.

I am aware that sometimes people play sex games and that consent can include words like stop and no and don’t. But unless you know the other person well enough and have previously agreed that certain words that might be said are just part of the sex and NOT indications that one or the other is not willing to continue: If someone says STOP or NO or You are hurting me: Stop. For your own sake.

In the case I was talking about, it was a friend I had known for many years—long enough to recognize when she had been traumatized —and to know that her no meant no. Actually in this case, I knew the guy better than she did and if I had known she was going to go out with him, I would have warned her off: he was not a good dude.
 
Derec said:
Crystal Mangum lied. Some women lie about rape. That's why we should not automatically believe women, but instead apportion belief to the evidence.
Click to expand...
Evidence requires investigation which requires initial belief. “Trust but verify”.

Some rapists lie about rape. That’s why we should not automatically believe rapists, but instead apportion judgment to the evidence.
 
"See therefore all women lie about rape" -certain people on this forum probably
 
laughing dog said:
Derec said:
Crystal Mangum lied. Some women lie about rape. That's why we should not automatically believe women, but instead apportion belief to the evidence.
Click to expand...
Evidence requires investigation which requires initial belief. “Trust but verify”.

Some rapists lie about rape. That’s why we should not automatically believe rapists, but instead apportion judgment to the evidence.
Click to expand...
There's no need for trust, it's simply a matter of verify. Unless someone is caught in the act there should be no arrest or the like until it has been determined that they probably did it. Arrest should not be a weapon.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
laughing dog said:
Derec said:
Crystal Mangum lied. Some women lie about rape. That's why we should not automatically believe women, but instead apportion belief to the evidence.
Click to expand...
Evidence requires investigation which requires initial belief. “Trust but verify”.

Some rapists lie about rape. That’s why we should not automatically believe rapists, but instead apportion judgment to the evidence.
Click to expand...
There's no need for trust, it's simply a matter of verify. Unless someone is caught in the act there should be no arrest or the like until it has been determined that they probably did it. Arrest should not be a weapon.
Click to expand...
The police have to believe they should look into the report before they will initiate an investigation. If they simply disbelieve the reports, they won't look for evidence or other witnesses, or do anything, really.

Jimmy Savile got away with rape and sexual assault for decades because the police didn't believe the reports of him committing sexual assault could possibly be true, or that his actions were all that bad even if he did grope a few teenagers. They didn't investigate the allegations until after the guy was dead.

The same thing kept happening in Boston when people reported that Catholic priests were raping and sexually abusing children. The cops didn't investigate. It wasn't until the Boston Globe did some investigating that the victims of those crimes had anyone really listening to them.

I'm going to repeat this so the hard-of-learning might make some progress here: No one is suggesting police officers getting reports from alleged victims should switch off their brains and simply 'have faith like a little child' that what they are being told is Absolute Truth, or that victims and/or witnesses cannot be mistaken, or that we can just go straight from accusation to conviction without a good faith effort to investigate the allegations.

In Mangum's case, the cops did make a good faith effort to investigate and found insufficient cause to charge anyone with a crime. It was Mike Nifong who kept making inflammatory accusations and concealed exculpatory evidence in order to persuade people to vote for him, who turned the case into a shitshow. The cops did their jobs.
 
Last edited:
laughing dog said:
Derec said:
Crystal Mangum lied. Some women lie about rape. That's why we should not automatically believe women, but instead apportion belief to the evidence.
Click to expand...
Evidence requires investigation which requires initial belief. “Trust but verify”.

Some rapists lie about rape. That’s why we should not automatically believe rapists, but instead apportion judgment to the evidence.
Click to expand...
I'd say rapists on average lie about rape a lot more than accusers of rape.
 
Toni said:
Of course she lied.
Click to expand...
And yet you still believe that she was raped. Despite utter lack of evidence and her recanting now. :rolleyesa:
Everyone lies at some point. And she told conflicting stories about what happened so by default, she lied or was mistaken—which is not at all unusual if someone was intoxicated or traumatized or…human.
Click to expand...
Lying is a serious problem when you accuse somebody of a crime, especially of a heinous crime such as rape.
I do not understand why you do not see that as a problem.
I remember things differently you now than I did at the time they happened. Depending on what we are talking about, my current memory may be more or less accurate. I’m certain the same is true for you and everyone else reading this. It is the nature of memory.
Click to expand...
Where exactly do you believe our memories of the Duke Lacrosse case differ?
Unfortunately, rape is extremely common. At least 1 in four women is raped in her lifetime.
Click to expand...
That's a bullshit claim made by radfem activists.
I am aware that sometimes people play sex games and that consent can include words like stop and no and don’t. But unless you know the other person well enough and have previously agreed that certain words that might be said are just part of the sex and NOT indications that one or the other is not willing to continue: If someone says STOP or NO or You are hurting me: Stop. For your own sake.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with the Duke Lacrosse case? There was no sex between Mangum and any of the lacrosse players. Period.
In the case I was talking about, it was a friend I had known for many years—long enough to recognize when she had been traumatized —and to know that her no meant no. Actually in this case, I knew the guy better than she did and if I had known she was going to go out with him, I would have warned her off: he was not a good dude.
Click to expand...
That may be so, but it has zero salience to the Duke Lacrosse case.
Again, this is what you said in your opening post in this thread.
Toni said:
I think it is very likely that she was actually raped, given the intoxication. I think it is even more likely that she does not entirely remember what happened due to the intoxication and mental illness.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with anecdotes about women you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom