Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
plague311 said:
I thought they had openly stated they were presenting everything. I think she could have done more damage if she wasn't presented to the grand jury and shown to be a completely crackpot.
Click to expand...

They did state that. That's what's under discussion. "Why did they decide to do that?" It is not normal to present a bunch of bogus witnesses to the grand jury if you know ahead of time that they're bogus. And why let liar lady testify for two-and-a-half hours and not immediately debunk her if the only purpose was to show that there were people out there making **** up?

As I said, I think he was "trying" the case in the grand jury. It was never going to get to trial so he wanted all the claims and counter-claims in the GJ testimony. I can see why he did that. I'm just not sure I agree with it.
 
Jesus. Was just listening to the Smoking Gun journos discussing Witness 40 while mowing the lawn. What a travesty! I can't believe secretive Grand Juries are a thing. The criminal justice system in the US is an absolute joke.
 
Foolmewunz said:
"A lot". Very quantifiable term. Please link all of them so we can judge, because we've been discussing this for two pages and both sides of the discussion acknowledge that he tore down her testimony. If you wish to go argue with or about some websites, go have at it.
Click to expand...

If they tore down her testimony, and they did, then I see no point in making an issue of her testimony.

I don't understand the discussion, except for those trying to make it seem like it had something to do with the decision not to indict.

So, I emphasize that the GJ was well aware that she was not credible.

She claimed to be a witness, she had been interviewed as a witness, she was called, she was not credible.

Just like many other witnesses. Her testimony did not stand the full scrutiny of the GJ.

She had to be called, imo.
 
bit_pattern said:
Jesus. Was just listening to the Smoking Gun journos discussing Witness 40 while mowing the lawn. What a travesty! I can't believe secretive Grand Juries are a thing. The criminal justice system in the US is an absolute joke.
Click to expand...

Lack of knowledge plus TSG equals informed opinion.
 
So what would have happened if the DA just made the announcement that he and his prosecution team had reviewed all the evidence, and weren't going to press charges?

That's exactly what he would have done, absent the political pressure circus, imo.
 
LTC8K6 said:
A lot of media sources seem to be reporting that her testimony is bogus, but few seem to be including the fact that the GJ knew it was bogus.
Click to expand...

Well no, you can't actually say the grand jury 'knew it was bogus'; just because the prosecution might be seen in transcripts as asking questions which would theoretically discredit her doesn't change the fact that whether or not she was actually discredited was a subjective decision that each juror had to make.

Indeed, the fact that her testimony was 'known to be bogus' did not stop many pundits - and some people in this thread, by the way - from repeating her uncorroborated 'charged head down like a football player' baloney as if it was a credible description of anything that actually happened during the incident.
 
LTC8K6 said:
If they tore down her testimony, and they did, then I see no point in making an issue of her testimony.

I don't understand the discussion, except for those trying to make it seem like it had something to do with the decision not to indict.

So, I emphasize that the GJ was well aware that she was not credible.

She claimed to be a witness, she had been interviewed as a witness, she was called, she was not credible.

Just like many other witnesses. Her testimony did not stand the full scrutiny of the GJ.

She had to be called, imo.
Click to expand...

She absolutely did NOT have to be called. The prosecutor does not have to call every single person who claims to be a witness; in fact, this county prosecutor himself during his post-verdict speech explained that many witnesses were weeded out specifically because their reports were shown not to match things like forensic evidence. There were any number of phony witnesses (who were not actually present) whose fake testimony favored Brown over Wilson in the matter and they were quite certainly not called to testify. There's absolutely no legal justification for a prosecutor (or any attorney) to willingly introduce testimony before the jury that they positively know to be false, even if they 'plan' to 'discredit' it - because there's no guarantee that the 'discrediting' is going to erase the testimony's effect on the jury's decisions like the wave of some magic wand. At the end of months of testimony, somebody's claim about Brown charging like a football player might stick in a jury member's memory while a quick rebuttal might not.
 
Checkmite said:
She absolutely did NOT have to be called. The prosecutor does not have to call every single person who claims to be a witness; in fact, this county prosecutor himself during his post-verdict speech explained that many witnesses were weeded out specifically because their reports were shown not to match things like forensic evidence.
Click to expand...

That's not at all what McCulloch asserted.



Checkmite said:
There were any number of phony witnesses (who were not actually present) whose fake testimony favored Brown over Wilson in the matter and they were quite certainly not called to testify.
Click to expand...

Again, wrong. There is exactly zero evidence that any person, regardless of narrative, who claimed to have witnessed the event and who was able to be located was not compelled to provide evidence to this grand jury. There were exactly two claimed witnesses who refused to testify and were not able to be served. The information that they existed was shared with the grand jury and both of the previous statements from these witnesses (IIRC) was read in the record.

There were several witnesses who were compelled to testify against their own wishes -- some repeated the media narrative; some supported Wilson's narrative.

Checkmite said:
There's absolutely no legal justification for a prosecutor (or any attorney) to willingly introduce testimony before the jury that they positively know to be false...
Click to expand...

The legal justification can be found in "the power of grand juries to inquire into the willful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments in connection therewith..." It is the grand jury, not the prosecutor, that assigns weight and credibility to witnesses.

In fact, it was the prosecutor's questioning and subsequent investigation that uncovered W40's journal which in turn exposed her perjury.
 
Just to correct what I had asserted earlier, there was one statement from a claimed witness who could not be located by the SLCPD or FBI whose statement was not read into the record for the grand jurors. I do remember reading the transcript where the prosecutor informed the jurors of this fact. I'll see if I can find that again.

There's no evidence that I'm aware of that the prosecutors withheld a statement or failed to present a witness because they assessed the witness as not credible.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
That's quite a memorial, love all the teddy bears and such, as if Brown was a 3 year old.

Can't wait to see the hubbub when it snows and a plow comes along.
Click to expand...

At some point, the street department is going to have to grow a pair and step in. You can't just pile whatever you want in the middle of a public street. Although, maybe they're afraid the peaceful protestors will be peaceful again if they remove it.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
At some point, the street department is going to have to grow a pair and step in. You can't just pile whatever you want in the middle of a public street. Although, maybe they're afraid the peaceful protestors will be peaceful again if they remove it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, eventually EMS hauls the body away.
 
So the people of Ferguson still believe the Gentle Giant myth. Just a kid needing his teddy bear.
 
Last edited:
Mike! said:
Nothing is over until WE say it is...
Now an unofficial 'Black Grand Jury" is going to look over the evidence in the Michael Brown shooting.
What are the odds they'll come to a completely different conclusion than the real Grand Jury did?
http://fox2now.com/2015/01/02/black-grand-jury-meeting-to-review-evidence-this-weekend/
Click to expand...
"The group has no legal authority, but organizers say the goal is to uncover what they call a clear bias "

I'm pretty sure they'll accomplish that goal, but not the way they think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom