<p>I had no idea she had allegedly stabbed a boyfriend a month ago (who has now died) and the article goes onto mention another case I never heard about from February 2010 where she was charged with attempted murder of another boyfriend, arson, and other charges. </p>
<p>Wow, what a saga. </p>
<p>In some ways (though it is too bad what has happened considering more victims), I hope it further vindicates those wrongly accused by this woman.</p>
<p>That’s true, but I guess the way it has been a series of very significant crimes and it has gone on for so long, ending now in a murder. And often it is this way with criminals that they get out of various incidents and it builds to more serious incidents as they have been free all this time and their behavior escalates. If you read the article, it talks more about the incident from Feb. 2010:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She should have been in jail by now and this latest incident of murder would not have occurred. And going back to before the Duke Lacrosse case, didn’t she wrongly accuse some guys of rape too? She has done so much damage to so many people and basically gotten away with it until this time it ended with a murder. </p>
<p>To think anyone believed her story in the Duke case, knowing so much more now, (or even what came out back then), is hard to believe. She has ruined many lives, not to mention her own kids’.</p>
<p>From the very beginning, it was extraordinary to me how many people were happy to immediately accept that those lacrosse players were guilty, purely because they were accused, though the investigation hadn’t taken place and though some of the guys said they weren’t even there. They were automatically guilty, purely because they were men and apparently “privileged,” as opposed to the fact that they were probably at Duke because they were very intelligent and athletic.</p>
If she was not convicted of arson, then perhaps she did not do it. You quote one sentence, which is far too little to determine whether or not she was guilty. All it says is that she was not convicted.</p>
<p>Though perhaps she should have been in jail for some of the other things.</p>
<p>Did she ever admit that she lied, or was it just a dropped case based on not having enough evidence, which the article seems to say?</p>
<p>Billy, you are right that she was not convicted of more than child abuse in that episode. I’m not saying she was guilty of more but she was charged with a bunch of things just that time alone. She has had significant run-ins with the law many times now, with growing levels of seriousness, the latest resulting in murder. Please understand that even my thread heading only says “allegedly.” So, while she wasn’t convicted last time of all the charges, it doesn’t mean she was guilty of them all but not that she was innocent either. The jury was unable to “agree.” And back with the Duke case, I believe she was let off free despite much perjury and so on. So, while not convicted in the many incidents she has been involved in, let’s just say she has been involved in many incidents over the years with increasing levels of severity and hasn’t been convicted in all cases. But she has a poor track record, and now it has risen to an alleged murder. But yes, one is innocent until proven guilty. Someone who is guilty may also get off scot free if there is not enough evidence to prove guilt. It happens.</p>
<p>Chrystal Magnum reminds me of the twin sister (fraternal) of a friend of mine. The woman, now in her mid-forties, is a long diagnosed sociopath, with no sense of guilt or responsibility for any of her many hurtful actions. Truly a scary individual. both sisters were raised in a stable middle class home with both parents. My friend went on to graduate from one of the service academies and later work as an executive in a major corporation, but her sister, at an early age, embarked on a life of theft, assault, homelessness, drug abuse, and repeated unwed motherhood. The courts quickly stripped her of custody of every child she’s ever born because of her condition. My friend and her husband only have one biological child of their own, but have adopted and raised no less than three of the children born by this disturbed sister. They do not let her into their home or the lives of the children under any circumstances. They long ago learned to accept that this sister is lost to them.</p>
<p>As a society, we no longer force the mentally ill into treatment, nor lock them up in hospitals, unless they try to assassinate The President…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>She tried to run down a police officer with a vehicle many years ago too. Seems like law enforcement was fairly lax with her. The Attorney General declined to prosecute her after finding the Lacrosse players innocent.</p>
<p>The increasingly clear lesson here for athletes [and assorted others] is that you need to be quite careful in how you construct your “entertainment”. Who do you think is employed by these strippers-for-hire companies? It aint the ones you see in the media depictions of the gold hearted working girl. </p>
<p>When you lay down with dogs you get fleas. Or worse. Its almost inconceivable to say it, but given what has transpired since, the Duke lacrosse players should be thankful that what happened to them was the full extent of it. There is one departed soul who would trade his outcome for theirs.</p>
<p>but seriously, I think Duke should’ve fired their professors and administrators who came out so strongly against the Duke students. Of course, then they would probably only have half of their faculty and staff, but so it goes.</p>
<p>Maybe if the woman had been prosecuted for her false claims against the Duke players she could have been sent to prison and gotten the help she needed. I suspect the woman was not prosecuted because prosecutors feared allegations that they would be after her because of her race.</p>
<p>I agree with this. Because of our past inexcusable mistakes in this country, we are often over compensating. </p>
<p>This women is a criminal for whatever reason–mental or otherwise. But her accusations did great harm to several white male students assumed to be guilty because they went to Duke and, therefore, must be privileged. </p>
<p>Let’s face it. The Duke students were assumed to be guilty. At least in the press.</p>
<p>BTW, I do not condone a sport team or fraternity engaging local, or any, strippers or pole dancers, etc. That is a whole another discussion.</p>
<p>Lots of lawyers got paid big bucks to help defend these innocent men. They were vindicated, but at what cost to them and their families? Their names will always be associated with this case.</p>
Ah, what discussion of crime (or college) would be complete without this rearing its ugly head?</p>
<p>Don’t you know? Black people have it easy with law enforcement. It’s reverse racism, I tell you!* :rolleyes:</p>
<p>*Nevermind the fact that racism against any race is just racism, and “reverse” racism would be tolerance, which is severely lacking when people loudly and falsely declare that minorities have it easy.</p>
<p>I don’t know if the names of those young men will always be associated with the Duke Lacrosse case, Samurai. I can’t personally recall the name of a single one of them. And given the fact that they are fully vindicated, and Chrytal Magnum proven to be a genuine menace, I would think the association might actually help in some cases. Lots of opportunities might be made available out of a sheer sense of solidarity and desire to compensate for their misfortune.</p>
<p>With all due respect, I disagree. There will be an asterisk next to those men’s names.
Their obits will likely link this case to them, decades from now. </p>
<p>Even being vindicated, it is still there.</p>
<p>Plus, don’t forget that they are still pursuing a lawsuit against the City of Durham and Duke. It just recently got the nod to go forward. </p>
<p>Just like anyone falsely accused for a crime may face prejudice and stigma, this one made national news. Just because you don’t recall their names doesn’t mean that everyone has forgotten them. When they apply for jobs or submit for a background check, you had better believe that this will come up. Even if they are innocent.</p>
<p>Perhaps you’re right, Samurai. But, if I were hiring, I’d probably give one of these men a job (assuming he’s well qualified, of course) because of his ordeal. Injustice really bugs me, and I’d want to try to balance the scales in my own small way if it were within my power.</p>
<p>poetsheart- I could see many people having your same attitude on this.</p>
<p>samurai- I think you would be correct if there were even the slightest doubt that they were innocent but we are so far beyond the that question that I believe there will not be any lasting impact (career wise) to them as we go forward. </p>
<p>We will find out in about ten years when we read the book.</p>