Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
RandFan said:
Why was she called to testify in the first place? How was her testimony probative? Was this theater on the part of the prosecutor?
Click to expand...

My guess would be, they wanted/needed to take the public testimony people had made (News, Oprah, etc.) and show them for the fallacies they were, directly before the grand jury. Otherwise, after the fact, there'd be an outcry of relevant 'witnesses' not being allowed to testify before the GJ. And we can't have that, now can we?
 
Mike! said:
My guess would be, they wanted/needed to take the public testimony people had made (News, Oprah, etc.) and show them for the fallacies they were, directly before the grand jury. Otherwise, after the fact, there'd be an outcry of relevant 'witnesses' not being allowed to testify before the GJ. And we can't have that, now can we?
Click to expand...
Damn. Wait, what about... damn.
 
Mike! said:
My guess would be, they wanted/needed to take the public testimony people had made (News, Oprah, etc.) and show them for the fallacies they were, directly before the grand jury. Otherwise, after the fact, there'd be an outcry of relevant 'witnesses' not being allowed to testify before the GJ. And we can't have that, now can we?
Click to expand...

That only makes sense if the prosecutor wasn't actually seeking an indictment.

ETA: Which I assume is what your were implying, now that I reread your post. I should have just let RandFan's reply stand on its own. Damn.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
That only makes sense if the prosecutor wasn't actually seeking an indictment.

ETA: Which I assume is what your were implying, now that I reread your post. I should have just let RandFan's reply stand on its own. Damn.
Click to expand...

No.

The grand jury is empowered to make inquiries into whatever charge and manner of crime. In grand jury investigation mode, they should have all the evidence, since they are the group tasked with assigning weight to that evidence.

This has all been discussed in a fair amount of depth in another thread.
 
Mike! said:
My guess would be, they wanted/needed to take the public testimony people had made (News, Oprah, etc.) and show them for the fallacies they were, directly before the grand jury. Otherwise, after the fact, there'd be an outcry of relevant 'witnesses' not being allowed to testify before the GJ. And we can't have that, now can we?
Click to expand...

That would be my guess as well.
 
Cylinder said:
No.

The grand jury is empowered to make inquiries into whatever charge and manner of crime. In grand jury investigation mode, they should have all the evidence, since they are the group tasked with assigning weight to that evidence.

This has all been discussed in a fair amount of depth in another thread.
Click to expand...

OK, I'm not wading into that other thread, so I'll take that as you put it. Thanks.
 
Mike! said:
My guess would be, they wanted/needed to take the public testimony people had made (News, Oprah, etc.) and show them for the fallacies they were, directly before the grand jury. Otherwise, after the fact, there'd be an outcry of relevant 'witnesses' not being allowed to testify before the GJ. And we can't have that, now can we?
Click to expand...

I was hoping I would get to be Mr. Clever as I scrolled down and then found you'd beat me to it.

Perhaps I had a slightly different version though. I was going to say I suspect he just generally wanted to show the grand jury some strong and obvious examples of how people bring their biases to bear on their testimony. He may have wanted to appear even-handed by making sure to include unreliable witnesses on both sides and expose them as such.

Dr. Keith said:
That only makes sense if the prosecutor wasn't actually seeking an indictment.
Click to expand...

Why would he be seeking an indictment? One was not appropriate. This only went to the GJ to shut people up.

I have very little sympathy for people who stomp their feet and demand something be done, get their way, and then act like there's something super shady about them having been appeased.

There sort of is, because our legal system shouldn't be in the business of appeasing bloodthirsty, ignorant, whiny mobs - but bloodthirsty, ignorant, whiny mobs are the last people I want to hear complaining about something they forced to happen to begin with.

(not talking about anyone here, I hope)
 
Foolmewunz said:
Question (not facetious and not addressed to you but to anyone with the answer): And the DA tearing her story apart? Interesting. Why was she even testifying? The DA surely could've elected to not call her.
Click to expand...

RandFan said:
Why was she called to testify in the first place? How was her testimony probative? Was this theater on the part of the prosecutor?
Click to expand...

You both seem to be advocating for Prosecutors using GJ's to simply cherry pick the evidence they present in such a way as to only provide evidence that clearly makes the suspect look guilty. Is this correct? And if so, what is the point of having a GJ at all?
 
PhantomWolf said:
You both seem to be advocating for Prosecutors using GJ's to simply cherry pick the evidence they present in such a way as to only provide evidence that clearly makes the suspect look guilty. Is this correct? And if so, what is the point of having a GJ at all?
Click to expand...

Because that's how they indict ham sandwiches!
 
PhantomWolf said:
You both seem to be advocating for Prosecutors using GJ's to simply cherry pick the evidence they present in such a way as to only provide evidence that clearly makes the suspect look guilty. Is this correct? And if so, what is the point of having a GJ at all?
Click to expand...

That is not what was being supported. That is, however, the way that grand juries work. The issue here is that the prosecution had access to the FBI work. They knew she was bogus. They not only called her, but had her come back and present her journal entries as evidence.

If I'm the prosecution, the last thing I'd do is put a lying witness in front of the GJ. So I'm curious as to their motives. The purpose of a GJ is to examine the evidence. What was said on Oprah or in the newspaper was not "evidence". Why present it to the GJ?
 
Foolmewunz said:
If I'm the prosecution, the last thing I'd do is put a lying witness in front of the GJ. So I'm curious as to their motives. The purpose of a GJ is to examine the evidence. What was said on Oprah or in the newspaper was not "evidence". Why present it to the GJ?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's entirely true anymore. That's the principle; sure; but current practice seems to have forgotten that.
 
Foolmewunz said:
That is not what was being supported. That is, however, the way that grand juries work. The issue here is that the prosecution had access to the FBI work. They knew she was bogus. They not only called her, but had her come back and present her journal entries as evidence.

If I'm the prosecution, the last thing I'd do is put a lying witness in front of the GJ. So I'm curious as to their motives. The purpose of a GJ is to examine the evidence. What was said on Oprah or in the newspaper was not "evidence". Why present it to the GJ?
Click to expand...

If they didn't have them testify, when the evidence was released (They made it clear early on, all evidence would be released when the GJ was done) and all the possible testimony wasn't allowed in, then there'd be an outcry of a 'cover up', or some other such similar nonsense, from those expecting a different outcome than that which was delivered.
Don't let them testify and they are trying to hide something.
Let them testify and someone will ask, 'why even bother if they are lying anyway?'
Given the two possible outcomes, it's best to let them make fools of themselves in front of the GJ rather than risk the potential accusations of 'cover up' by not letting them.
"Why didn't they let Piglet Crabclaw testify? I seen her on Oprah and she seen it all!"
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
That is not what was being supported. That is, however, the way that grand juries work. The issue here is that the prosecution had access to the FBI work. They knew she was bogus. They not only called her, but had her come back and present her journal entries as evidence.

If I'm the prosecution, the last thing I'd do is put a lying witness in front of the GJ. So I'm curious as to their motives. The purpose of a GJ is to examine the evidence. What was said on Oprah or in the newspaper was not "evidence". Why present it to the GJ?
Click to expand...

You are aware that they also put pro-Brown witnesses on the stand knowing that they had lied as well? They did the same with them as they did with Witness #40, the pulled apart the lies in front of the Jury. Following your logic, should they have had those witnesses? Or should they have not have had them testify, or just not pulled apart their fabrications?

Can you imagine the issues that doing either of those options would have caused?
 
HenryLee said:
Because that's how they indict ham sandwiches!
Click to expand...

Which again makes me question what the point is, if the Prosecutor is going to rig the deck by presenting cherry-picked and bias evidence and excluding anything else, then why go through the farce in the first place? Why not just indict. Surely a Grand Jury should be used for where the Prosecutor is wanting to test the strength of the case by giving the Jury all the evidence without the defence and see if there is even enough to make it over the starting line.

GJ Farces seem to me to be a waste of time and money because when you have to leave out 90% of the gathered evidence to even get a jury to confirm that you have probable cause for indictment, you'll never get it beyond Reasonable Doubt against a defence lawyer.
 
Mike! said:
If they didn't have them testify, when the evidence was released (They made it clear early on, all evidence would be released when the GJ was done) and all the possible testimony wasn't allowed in, then there'd be an outcry of a 'cover up', or some other such similar nonsense, from those expecting a different outcome than that which was delivered.
Don't let them testify and they are trying to hide something.
Let them testify and someone will ask, 'why even bother if they are lying anyway?'
Given the two possible outcomes, it's best to let them make fools of themselves in front of the GJ rather than risk the potential accusations of 'cover up' by not letting them.
"Why didn't they let Piglet Crabclaw testify? I seen her on Oprah and she seen it all!"
Click to expand...

+100 Internets for you , sir.
 
The ham sandwich line is famous because it's relatively accurate. People here seem to think that a GJ functions in order to cut-off internet arguments at the pass.

The GJ is a rubber stamp, for the most part, of the desires of the DA's office. Everyone saying that this was all to short circuit future complaints is just agreeing that it was no more than a "show trial". Give the public a little song and dance. Calling the pro-Brown witnesses to quell that section of the complaints makes sense. Calling the lying bigot? Not so much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom