Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foolmewunz said:
I'll try not to draw parallels between your acceptance of an urban legend and your normal forensic talents, 'cuz that just would be unfair, and we at the ISF always argue fairly.

But that is a crap urban legend.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the ham sandwich was framed?
 
ZiprHead said:
I still chuckled...
Click to expand...
The point is the DA got the grand jury to indict an innocent ham sandwich, and even though it was acquitted at trial millions of people still believe it killed Mama Cass.

We have to stop this madness of DAs getting grand juries to indict ham sandwiches, it's wrong and not in the interest of justice.
 


St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch was interviewed today by radio station KTRS about the grand jury investigation and decision.

Among the issues discussed was the timing of the release, the DOJ leaks, other cases of police misconduct prosecuted by his office, Witness 40 and the decision to present all claimed witnesses to the grand jury and McCulloch's hope that the federal investigation into this shooting doesn't take as long as the last high-profile claim of civil rights investigation into a self-defense shooting.
 
Cylinder said:


St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch was interviewed today by radio station KTRS about the grand jury investigation and decision.

Among the issues discussed was the timing of the release, the DOJ leaks, other cases of police misconduct prosecuted by his office, Witness 40 and the decision to present all claimed witnesses to the grand jury and McCulloch's hope that the federal investigation into this shooting doesn't take as long as the last high-profile claim of civil rights investigation into a self-defense shooting.
Click to expand...

That seems to confirm what others have said. I don't necessarily support the approach, but there's no question of legality. My own impression is that he went in with "no indictment" in the script and decided to "try" the case in the Grand Jury since it was going to end there.
 
Foolmewunz said:
My own impression is that he went in with "no indictment" in the script and decided to "try" the case in the Grand Jury since it was going to end there.
Click to expand...
Maybe because he knew there was no case and it's unethical to bring charges when you know you have no case?
 
On Oct. 23, the grand jury heard a tape of investigators picking apart McElroy’s story and then listened to her testify in person, as prosecutors asked questions that poked additional holes in her claims.

McElroy said she knew that prosecutors were trying to discredit her. “They were trying to discredit me because of my racial slurs,” she said.
Click to expand...

The prosecutors actually made W40 look bad in front of the GJ.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_4cf83e2e-5241-50ce-a3e5-0097eb9b31dc.html
 
LTC8K6 said:
The prosecutors actually made W40 look bad in front of the GJ.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_4cf83e2e-5241-50ce-a3e5-0097eb9b31dc.html
Click to expand...

We know that. We're asking why she was allowed to testify in the first place when they apparently knew both what she was going to say and that it was all fantasy.

We have the prosecutor's version: He was trying to get all the evidence in front of the grand jury so that no one could say that anything was left out.

Some people are satisfied with that strange turn of behavior, some are not. Guess which side I'm leaning towards (well, leaning so much that I've toppled over).
 
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...

"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.
 
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...

I think he means the media blogospere, like Gawker.

Here's an example,

http://gawker.com/darren-wilsons-key-witness-was-bipolar-racist-liar-1671681384

"a crucial witness in the grand jury deciding whether to indict former Ferguson"
 
I LIKE that the DA took it to the GJ when he knew he had no chance of conviction.

Unlike the Zimmerman debacle, where the DA knew there was no chance of conviction, so did not want to bring a trial, so the Gov appointed a special prosecutor with orders to bring an unconvictable man to trial. And made a huge media circus out of it. Talk about legal "malicious prosecution".
 
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...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom