Michael Brown shooting II

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm going to disagree on there being legitimate cause for recusal. That, and the fact he's not actually handling the prosecution himself make the prosecutor a non-issue, IMO.

All the more reason he should have recused himself. The reason for recusal is not only because one is not, or cannot be fair, it is to maintain the appearance of fairness. If he isn't handling the case (and I don't agree that simply delegating some of the work means you are not critically involved) then why not step away altogether?

The latter. Clearly there is physical evidence that exists we aren't privy to, yes ?

I find it likely that in there exists evidence that explains why wilson has not yet been charged.

How does Wilson not being charged before the GJ hears the evidence mean anything as to the strength of the case?

He has already been interviewed multiple times by the police and DOJ.

Just because he didn't explain himself to you or the general public is irrelevant.

From what I read, no he wasn't interviewed multiple times. It was mentioned that the police union advises these guys to not give official reports. It sounds like that is the route Wilson may have taken so far.

 

[johnny karate]

Detention for the purpose of investigating a stealing BOLO.

And at what point was Brown asked to comply with this detention?

Or otherwise instructed in such a way that would prevent him from being shot to death?

 

[johnny karate]

Assuming a local whitewash doesn't explain state and federal inaction. Wilson has six years on patrol. With all of this evidence stacked against Wilson that will see the light of day at some point, how can that be?

How can what be?

You seem to be operating under the assumption that justice is swift and merciless in cases of a police officer killing someone in the line of duty.

Some of us have asked you to cite examples, and we're still waiting.

 

[RandFan]

...Brown not stopping in his approach towards the armed officer.

I missed that part. Could you post the witness testimony that says Brown was approaching the officer?

Look, I don't know what happened. If Brown was a threat to the officer then he had a right to defend himself. It's possible that Brown was charging and then lowered his head when he was 4 feet away and the officer shot Brown in the head.

However, some witnesses say that Brown was doubled up with his arms clutching his chest as he fell to the ground. At that moment the witnesses say is when the office shot him. How can you dismiss all testimony except that which doesn't fit your view of what happened?

I don't dismiss anything. I'd like to see an investigation before I decide one why or the other.

 

[Cylinder]

But are there "sealed no bills", where the GJ testimony remains secret in spite of a 'no true bill' finding? I suppose in juvenile proceedings, and sex crimes, but in this case?

There are kind of layers of complexity here that probably merit examining.

Pursuant to MRS, Chapter 540, the grand jury proceedings remain fairly secret. No grand juror in any instance can be compelled to disclose their vote, the vote of any other member or any of the discussions concerning the deliberation process. No grand juror at any time may disclose the name of any witness that appeared before it or the evidence presented to it. No grand juror may disclose a bill of indictment until the person targeted by that bill has been arrested.

IOW, here are significant and fairly permanent proscriptions on disclosure of grand jury proceedings. Witnesses and evidence can never be disclosed.

OTOH,pursuant to MRS 610.100 the police investigation becomes public record as soon as the investigation becomes inactive. An inactive investigation is defined as one in which one of the three following criteria are met:

a) A decision by the law enforcement agency not to pursue the case;


(b) Expiration of the time to file criminal charges pursuant to the applicable statute of limitations, or ten years after the commission of the offense; whichever date earliest occurs;

(c) Finality of the convictions of all persons convicted on the basis of the information contained in the investigative report, by exhaustion of or expiration of all rights of appeal of such persons;

​

So a no true bill would result in the grand jury proceeding remaining secret but the contents of the police investigation becoming public. Grand jurors would be free, but compelled by any means, to discuss their vote.

​

 

[Cylinder]

So far?

Is there a time limit?

Do you know for a fact that the Feds have decided not to pursue anything related to this case, ever?

Federal inaction on the Brown shooting. I fully expect DOJ to dredge up a consolation prize here.

Sorry about the shooting, looting and arson guys, we were just holding off on charging Wilson in the face of all this damning evidence because...

 

[Cylinder]

How can what be?

You seem to be operating under the assumption that justice is swift and merciless in cases of a police officer killing someone in the line of duty.

Some of us have asked you to cite examples, and we're still waiting.

That's not relevant to my discussion. My claim is that the various jurisdiction would have to explain inaction in the face of TSHTF in Ferguson -- not based on expectation over past arrests.

 

[Cylinder]

Are you claiming that having received complaints about past failures to prosecute cops who killed and having a father who was an on duty cop killed by a black man is not a reason for recusal?

Yes.

Bar Association Calls On Prosecutor To Recuse Himself From Ferguson Investigation

I was referring to the actual process of an ethics complaint adjudication -- not a press release. Maybe the authors of that opinion being members of the bar should petition the state ethics committee.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I missed that part. Could you post the witness testimony that says Brown was approaching the officer?

Look, I don't know what happened. If Brown was a threat to the officer then he had a right to defend himself. It's possible that Brown was charging and then lowered his head when he was 4 feet away and the officer shot Brown in the head.

However, some witnesses say that Brown was doubled up with his arms clutching his chest as he fell to the ground. At that moment the witnesses say is when the office shot him. How can you dismiss all testimony except that which doesn't fit your view of what happened?

I don't dismiss anything. I'd like to see an investigation before I decide one why or the other.

One of the construction workers said Brown stumbled forward "25 feet" (it's doubtful his estimate of distance is correct) as Wilson stepped back and shot more rounds. And on one of the aftermath videos a voice is heard saying Brown kept coming toward Wilson after multiple shots. The speaker expressed surprised the shots hadn't stopped Brown.

The rest of the eye witnesses did not report seeing Brown moving forward.


This reminded me I had forgotten to address casebro's claim that no one walks forward when surrendering. If you had run a considerable distance turned around and put your hands up, what is so unusual about walking back toward the place you had run away from? Someone who assumed Wilson wasn't going to shoot him dead with his hands up might walk back toward the officer.

 

[Cylinder]

It's a statement in itself that McCulloch won't recuse himself considering how far it would go to give the appearance of justice. Instead he choses not to, public perception be damned.

McColluch's duty of professional conduct isn't primarily to the appearance of justice. A prosecutor isn't an arbiter but an advocate. First and foremost, McColluch's duty is to objective truth and to the proper administration of justice. He was elected and sworn to serve that duty to represent the people of St. Louis County and the State of Missouri.

Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct 4-3.8 defines those duties specific to a prosecutor's role:

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;

(c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing;

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;

(e) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes:

(1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;
(2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and
(3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information;

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused, and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees, or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 4-3.6 or this Rule 4-3.8.

​

If people want to make a misconduct allegation, they should address it to the ethics committee or to the court supervising this grand jury. Nothing about a black man killing his father or his role as a law enforcement officer precludes him from supervising this case. It is his duty to canon not to prosecute cases where he believes probable cause for the charge does not exist.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I missed that part. Could you post the witness testimony that says Brown was approaching the officer?

Sure, over the last 3 pages here are 3 witnesses that all discuss brown moving towards wilson.

BTW, these are three witnesses who don't know brown and/or each other, and didn't have a little pow-wow prior to speaking to the police.

I didn't dismiss him as much as I didn't discuss him:

Phillip Walker, 40, another Canfield Green resident, told the Post-Dispatch on Tuesday that Brown was walking at a steady pace toward Wilson, with his hands up. “Not quickly,” Walker said. “He did not rush the officer.” Walker, who is distantly related to a Post-Dispatch reporter not involved in this report, said the last shot, into the top of Brown’s head, was from about 4 feet away.

“It wasn’t justified because he didn’t pose no threat to the officer. I don’t understand why he didn’t Tase him if he deemed him to be hostile. He didn’t have no weapon on him. I was confused on why he was shooting his rounds off like that into this individual,” Walker said.

The co-worker in the KTVI interview said he “starting hearing pops and when I look over … I seen somebody staggering and running. And when he finally caught himself he threw his hands up and started screaming, ‘OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK.’”

He said the officer “didn’t say, ‘Get on the ground.’ He didn’t say anything. At first his gun was down and then he … got about 8 to 10 feet away from him … I heard six, seven shots … it seemed like seven. Then he put his gun down. That’s when Michael stumbled forward. I’d say about 25 feet or so and then fell right on his face.”

I'm not sure what to make of his statements without more clarity.

He also seems to confirm that the 10 shots we have a recording of were fired while brown was advancing on wilson.

He adds the the likelihood that brown put his hands up at some point.



The workers are from a different county. Mitchell works with crenshaw.



So if we combine the recording of the shots, and the witness statements ... we get a bit of a mess, don't we. So we also need to look at factors such as motivation, how memory works, where were they located, who did they talk to and what did they talk about afterward to fill in any gaps, etc.



I'm comfortable with the generalization that people mostly suck at estimating time and distance.



I think it matters. People mentally "fill in" the details they don't see. If they believed they were watching someone shot in the back, they may see things differently than if they believe otherwise. And johnson appears to be straight up full of **** about seeing brown shot in the back.



Now they aren't. It's about the evolution of the walking back of story.



OK. We simply won't agree on what it means - but I believe it's enough for credible self defense. I believe it's enough the GJ won't return a true bill.

Michael Bradys interview is worth focusing on.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/new-witnesss-crucial-info-in-brown-shooting-320756803662
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/55915749/ns/msnbc/t/last-word-lawrence-odonnell-thursday-august-st/



He saw brown make punching motions through the police car window.

O`DONNELL: Where were his hands?
BRADY: Most likely through the window.

I'm not sure what it means other than he saw brown punching wilson.



I see three options:
1) Johnson was lying when he said he got hit by the door
2) Brady is lying when he says "his friend, he was actually like in front of the vehicle ... 5 feet away ..."
3) Brady missed the beginning of the altercation.

Brady:I was actually in my bedroom, and I hear an altercation outside. I happened to look out the
window. I see an altercation, some kind of tussling in the window.

It seems he clearly missed the beginning of the altercation. It could easily be that point at which Johnson was involved, and he had already moved to the other side of the vehicle by the time brady started watching.



Brady:And like I said, they both just take off from the vehicle after a little tussle in the window. And his friend runs behind a white two-door vehicle that was sitting off to the side. And the officer immediately just gets out the vehicle and he just started shooting. So, when he started shooting, he was actually taking large steps to him, to him...

Ambiguous as to number of shots.

Also: The company claims the echos prove that the shooter did not move more than 4 feet while these shots were fired.



I think one of the things that adds to his credibility is that the wasn't on grassy knoll, gathered with all the other witnesses. But his story is still inconsistent, and leaves questions.

The police seem confident of a shot fired at the car, but:
O`DONNELL: And did you hear a shot fired before Michael Brown ran away from the car?
BRADY: No, that`s what I didn`t hear. Because like I said, I was still in the window while it was going on.

He can't hear a shot through the window, but hears the altercation ?

Brady heard the altercation, but hasn't described what was said as he watched. No "I give up" which was supposed to happen right as the last 4 shots occurred ?

Brady:But the officer, before he went down, the officer lets out three or four more shots at him. That`s when he hit the ground.

Why was brown doubled over, hands around stomach ... he wasn't shot in the stomach ?

How does this work with the recording of the shots:
BRADY: When I gets outside, he was actually turned back around facing the officer.

6 shots fired he doesn't hear, then makes it to the door in that 3 second window , yet brown was already turned around facing wilson ? Then he hears 4 shots ? And he must have heard them, because how else does he come up with 4 or 5 ?



Not really.I think it's still very inconclusive.

New story regarding more witness statements. More witnesses that were not on the "grassy knoll"

It seems like in this story there were at most 3 shots at the car and a fleeing brown.

That brown was facing the officer, 10 feet away, and advancing when the 10 shot recording was heard.

At least, I can't make hos story work any other way than that with the recording.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_14a3e5f8-6c6a-5deb-92fe-87fcee622c29.html

But there were two outsiders who happened to be working outside at the apartment complex on Aug. 9 — two men from a company in Jefferson County — who heard a single gunshot, looked up from their work and witnessed the shooting.
...
His account largely matches those who reported that Wilson chased Brown on foot away from the car after the initial gunshot and fired at least one more shot in the direction of Brown as he was fleeing; that Brown stopped, turned around and put his hands up; and that the officer killed Brown in a barrage of gunfire.
...
Then he saw Brown running away from a police car. Wilson trailed about 10 to 15 feet behind, gun in hand. About 90 feet away from the car, the worker said, Wilson fired another shot at Brown, whose back was turned.

The worker said Brown stumbled and then stopped, put his hands up, turned around and said, “OK, OK, OK, OK, OK.” He said he told investigators from the St. Louis County police and the FBI that because of the stumble, it seemed to him that Brown had been wounded.
Wilson, gun drawn, also stopped about 10 feet in front of Brown, the worker said.

Then Brown moved, the worker said. “He’s kind of walking back toward the cop.” He said Brown’s hands were still up.

Wilson began backing up as he fired, the worker said.

After the third shot, Brown’s hands started going down, and he moved about 25 feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing. The worker said he could not tell from where he watched — about 50 feet away — if Brown’s motion toward Wilson after the shots was “a stumble to the ground” or “OK, I’m going to get you, you’re already shooting me.”

Look, I don't know what happened. If Brown was a threat to the officer then he had a right to defend himself. It's possible that Brown was charging and then lowered his head when he was 4 feet away and the officer shot Brown in the head.

However, some witnesses say that Brown was doubled up with his arms clutching his chest as he fell to the ground. At that moment the witnesses say is when the office shot him. How can you dismiss all testimony except that which doesn't fit your view of what happened?

I don't dismiss anything. I'd like to see an investigation before I decide one why or the other.

Did someone accuse you of dismissing something ? But the fact is, some witnesses, like johnson with his history of lying to the police, are easier to dismiss than others.

None of us knows what happened. Were simply discussing what may or may not have happened, or even be possible, based on the the few facts or witness statements we have.

 

[Mike!]

I missed that part. Could you post the witness testimony that says Brown was approaching the officer?

Look, I don't know what happened. If Brown was a threat to the officer then he had a right to defend himself. It's possible that Brown was charging and then lowered his head when he was 4 feet away and the officer shot Brown in the head.

However, some witnesses say that Brown was doubled up with his arms clutching his chest as he fell to the ground. At that moment the witnesses say is when the office shot him. How can you dismiss all testimony except that which doesn't fit your view of what happened?

I don't dismiss anything. I'd like to see an investigation before I decide one why or the other.

The most recent witness 'testimony', the two workers, say the Brown was moving toward Wilson. It's up thread someplace fairly close.
For a moment, rather than focusing on witness testimony, how about we 'focus' on what Wilson would be seeing, from his perspective. I've not talking about what he's thinking as this is transpiring, but what he is SEEING, from where he is standing. What does it LOOK like Brown is doing, as far as he can tell? If Brown steps towards him, and then bends his head down, what would that appear to be from Wilson's point of view? A surrender or a start of a 'bulrush charge'?
I'm not sure, so I'm asking.

On a side note, I recently got an old 60's G.I.Joe doll action figure, that has an insane amount of articulation. I was thinking about using it to recreate the possible positions Brown could have been in during the shooting. It might provide a better perspective than my skull illustrations.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If it is handled by his subordinates then the difference would be too small to get a razor blade into.

IOW, a distinction without a difference.

All the more reason he should have recused himself. The reason for recusal is not only because one is not, or cannot be fair, it is to maintain the appearance of fairness. If he isn't handling the case (and I don't agree that simply delegating some of the work means you are not critically involved) then why not step away altogether?

I don't understand - this about theater ? Not really fairness, but just the appearance ?

McCulloch declined to step aside, but he is not presenting evidence to the grand jury, which usually means he won’t try the case himself, Magee said. But he is supervising the two attorneys in his office — Sheila Whirley and Kathi Alizadeh — who are presenting to the grand jury.
Whirley has been with the office since 2001 and is the highest-ranking African American among the five black attorneys in the 57-member office. Alizadeh has been with the office since 1988 and is supervising the sex crimes unit. She is white.


He's not trying the case himself , someone else is. That is a huge difference.

Do you think he can order Whirley and Alizadeh to do a poor job or something ?If that's the case, the system is already completely broken.

The FBI, DOJ, the state, almost literally everyone is going to scrutinize this case.

How does Wilson not being charged before the GJ hears the evidence mean anything as to the strength of the case?

From what I read, no he wasn't interviewed multiple times. It was mentioned that the police union advises these guys to not give official reports. It sounds like that is the route Wilson may have taken so far.

I'm still looking for the article I saw that claimed he was interviewed multiple times by the PD and also by the DOJ. Not that they necessarily have any insight, but I did read that. Also don't see that it's plausible that he has remained silent on what happened this entire time.

 

[Lerxst]

No, I'm not.



What specifically have I refused to discuss?

And as far as the two events being separate, I've made my argument and presented my logic. If you disagree, that's certainly your prerogative.



You say that as if it's just some minor quibble.



I agree. My position has been to draw conclusions based on the evidence, and that's what I have consistently been doing.



He didn't have to assume anything. Brown was giving up. That's what it means when you put your hands in the air.



You don't think it's "realistic" to expect the police to not shoot and kill people who are surrendering to them?



And that person has been asked to back up that assertion with examples in which a police officer was immediately charged after killing someone in the line of duty.

Perhaps you'd like to offer assistance in providing an example instead of just accepting the claim on face value.

Humans are often illogical and their decisions are often based on emotional reactions, especially in a heated situation such as this one. If you can't understand, based on your own human experience, how someone might not be able to instantly calm down and not respond to force with force then I doubt any such example would be helpful to you. I imagine you might even claim it's unrelated.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sure, over the last 3 pages here are 3 witnesses that all discuss brown moving towards wilson.
....

You continue to falsely say that Brady said he saw punching motions when he clearly said all he saw was Brown's hands inside the window and the punching gesture he made in the interview is not what he actually saw.

He also seems to confirm that the 10 shots we have a recording of were fired while brown was advancing on wilson.

This is your interpretation, but there is another possibility, Brown turned as the volley of 6 was coming at him.

I understand you have a particular POV here but when you repeat details that have been corrected without evidence the corrections were wrong, it doesn't help your case.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't understand - this about theater ? Not really fairness, but just the appearance ?...

Recusal (Wiki)

Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The same section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.

Further down they refer to applying the same standards to other agencies.

I don't see what McCulloch has to gain by not recusing himself except either his ego or if he really is planning to be an advocate for Wilson.

Yes, recusal is about the appearance of fairness, not an accusation of corruption.

I'm still looking for the article I saw that claimed he was interviewed multiple times by the PD and also by the DOJ. Not that they necessarily have any insight, but I did read that. Also don't see that it's plausible that he has remained silent on what happened this entire time.

I assumed the blank incident reports were just something released to the public and the real accounts were being held back. It's shocking to think Wilson was not officially debriefed.

But then I read the union advises police not to talk to the police and if you think about the other side of it, a shooter who wasn't a cop would surely be advised by a lawyer not to give a statement to police.

At some point hopefully, Wilson will be deposed, under oath and can either plead the 5th or give an account.

I haven't drawn a conclusion about what reports Wilson has or has not made. I have no idea.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

One of the construction workers said Brown stumbled forward "25 feet" (it's doubtful his estimate of distance is correct) as Wilson stepped back and shot more rounds. And on one of the aftermath videos a voice is heard saying Brown kept coming toward Wilson after multiple shots. The speaker expressed surprised the shots hadn't stopped Brown.

It's crazy to think these two guys saw the same event:

Worker 1 (the worker brown did not have a religious conversation with):
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_14a3e5f8-6c6a-5deb-92fe-87fcee622c29.html
Wilson, gun drawn, also stopped about 10 feet in front of Brown, the worker said.

Then Brown moved, the worker said. “He’s kind of walking back toward the cop.” He said Brown’s hands were still up.

Wilson began backing up as he fired, the worker said.

After the third shot, Brown’s hands started going down, and he moved about 25 feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing. The worker said he could not tell from where he watched — about 50 feet away — if Brown’s motion toward Wilson after the shots was “a stumble to the ground” or “OK, I’m going to get you, you’re already shooting me.”

Worker 2 (the worker brown did have a religious conversation with):
http://fox2now.com/2014/08/12/witness-claims-he-saw-what-happened-when-michael-brown-was-shot/
http://fox2now.com/2014/09/08/two-j...tion-workers-describe-michael-brown-shooting/

“I saw him staggering and running and when he finally caught himself he threw his hands up and started screaming OK OK OK OK OK and then the three officers come through the thing and the one just started shooting,” the worker told Fox 2`s Washington on August 12.

The Fox 2 witness immediately wrote down what he saw. He also drew a diagram showing him and his co-worker about 50 yards away. He wrote that the officer “emptied his gun into the guy.”

The eyewitness who talked to Fox 2 described looking up to see Brown, “…stumbling and falling… coming down the street and when he caught himself that’s when he threw his arms up, then here come the officer. At first his gun was down, then walked till he got 8 to 10 feet away from him then shot. I heard 6 (or) 7 shots.”

The rest of the eye witnesses did not report seeing Brown moving forward.

Brady did. And Crenshaw claimed brown did not move forward at all. These witnesses really are all over the place.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You continue to falsely say that Brady said he saw punching motions when he clearly said all he saw was Brown's hands inside the window and the punching gesture he made in the interview is not what he actually saw.
This is your interpretation, but there is another possibility, Brown turned as the volley of 6 was coming at him.

I understand you have a particular POV here but when you repeat details that have been corrected without evidence the corrections were wrong, it doesn't help your case.

Many things are possible.

Brady saw what assumed was punching through the window.

It's possible it was something other than punching ( rocks, papers scissors ?), but doesn't seem very likely when taking all the facts we have so far into consideration.

No one described Brown turning as the volley of 6 shots were coming at him. Based on the descriptions and the timing of the shots, brown would appear to have already been facing wilson.

It's possible he spun around during the shooting, but that doesn't match any witness statements or autopsy - you would have to believe he spun around and that wilson was still shooting him on the same side of the body, even though he was now presenting the opposite side of his body in the same target area. That's absurd (but still, I suppose, possible)

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Recusal (Wiki)
Further down they refer to applying the same standards to other agencies.

I don't see what McCulloch has to gain by not recusing himself except either his ego or if he really is planning to be an advocate for Wilson.

Yes, recusal is about the appearance of fairness, not an accusation of corruption.

"where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party"


That looks like an actual thing , not an appearance of a thing. Something else we'll simply have to disagree on, unless you can point to the law that talks about the appearance of fairness, not actual fairness.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

How does Wilson not being charged before the GJ hears the evidence mean anything as to the strength of the case?
.

Forgot to address this earlier:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/11/us-usa-missouri-shooting-idUSKBN0H62LJ20140911

Two attorneys at the prosecutor's office, Kathi Alizadeh and Sheila Whirley, are presenting the evidence to the grand jury, Magee said. Alizadeh, with 26 years on the job, including 22 murder cases, is leading the presentation.

"People just need to wait," Magee said. "People are still coming forward and we are still waiting for the investigation to be completed."

In the 33 cases prosecuted by McCulloch's office, police officers were charged with a range of crimes that included allegations of rape, assault and murder. In most of those cases, McCulloch's office leveled charges directly and did not take the cases to a grand jury. Charges are brought directly when there is a "clear-cut probable cause," Magee said. adding that there is no such clarity in the Brown shooting.