Ferguson Prosecutor Busted Presenting Fake Witness Before Grand Jury

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by steve knight, Dec 10, 2014.

  1. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #1
    this will be interesting to see what happens with this.
    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/10/witness-who-wasnt/
    So, you are Prosecutor Bob McCulloch. You have a grand jury investigation with the entire world watching. One of your witnesses in support of the officer is revealed by the FBI to have made up her entire account. What do you do?

    Apparently you present a discredited witness to the grand jury anyways. He played the FBI interview, which revealed that Witness 40’s car was not at the location, that 40 could not have exited in the manner described, that 40 did not even tell anyone her story until over two weeks after the shooting. They tore her apart, showing that she changed her story several times while sitting on the stand. For example, in her interview, 40 claimed to have made no contact to the police for two weeks, then later claimed that she did contact them several times before agreeing to be a witness. And that is not the only occasion they caught her changing her story, with other times her lack of knowledge of the crime scene, how her journal and testimony did not match, how the exit for the complex did not exist where she claimed all being revealed. That interview, found on pages 86-184 of Grand Jury Testimony Volume 15, completely discredits her as a witness.

    Then, fully knowing this, Bob McCulloch brought her before the grand jury, and entered her hand written journals filled with racist language into the record. And this testimony, by a discredited witness, is the one cited by right-wing media outlets in their attempts to support former Ferguson officer Darren Wilson. Claims of Michael Brown charging like a bull? Her account, and only her account.
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    I think some of our members have some crow to eat.
     
  3. steve knight thread starter Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #3
    it will taste like skunk
     
  4. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #4
    I wouldn't bet on it.

    A person who refers to blacks as "apes" would have credibility issues instantly, one would think.
     
  5. steve knight thread starter Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #5
    You would think but well there you have it.
     
  6. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
  7. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #7
    not a single thing will happen, as to why the prosecutor presented her? well, to discredit the officer would be my guess.
     
  8. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #8
    Seriously ... who does that besides cartoon characters?
     
  9. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #9
    How so? Did anyone cite witness 40 to make a point?

    I think we all argued that forensics aligned with the testimony of both the officer and witness 10, and didn't provide reasonable cause to take the case to trial.

    There were more than a fair handful of equally pitiful witnesses on the other side of the issue to boot...
     
  10. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #10
    There were just as many poor witnesses on the other side as the prosecutor presented everything he had. From the looks of things there is a very real problem, just Michael Brown is not a great example of it.
     
  11. DonJudgeMe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Location:
    Arizona
    #11
    Exactly. All this proves is that the prosecution was trying to get a trial by putting a "witness" on the stand that clearly had bias for defense. The OP just proved that the prosecution was doing his job... trying to get a trial.
     
  12. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #12
    Isn't it a crime to provide false testimony? And isn't it also a crime for a prosecutor to support perjury by knowingly putting a witness on the stand who plans to commit perjury?
     
  13. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #13
    How the hell is the prosecutors supporting perjury when he exposed the witness? Some of you here have no idea what the hell is going on :mad:
     
  14. TimelessOne macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2014
    #14
    If this is the case then the state should just over rule him and do another grand jury. That is not double jerporty
     
  15. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #15
    If the prosecutor wanted a trial, all he had to do was file charges himself......in Missouri prosecutors can and regularly do file charges directly without ever taking a case to a grand jury. It's not required.
     
  16. DonJudgeMe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Location:
    Arizona
    #16
    What are you insinuating? That whenever a grand jury is called upon in Missouri, the prosecution is trying to avoid a trial?

    A grand jury is used to examine the case and, in most cases give the prosecution a leg to stand on, if the case should go to trial.
     
  17. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #17
    I wasn't insinuating anything, just pointing out something you seem to be completely unaware of. No need for you to make up things about what others say, just stick with what's actually said.

    You're the one who said the prosecutor was trying to get a trial, so I pointed out the fact that in Missouri prosecutors can file charges without taking a case to a grand jury at all.....a grand jury isn't legally required, it's an option.......so if a prosecutor were trying to get a trial, as you claimed, all he'd have to do is file charges himself.

    from an article discussing the process in the case;

     
  18. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #18
    Here we go again beating a dead horse!
    Goin' down this old road we've walked before!
    Like anything new you say will egg me on!
    I've done made up my mind.
    Ain't no one gonna change it any time.
    Here we go again!

    Here we GGGGGOOOOOOOOO!
     
  19. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #19
    I see you chose the blue pill.
     
  20. DonJudgeMe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Location:
    Arizona
    #20
    Let us see. You have already made this argument in the other thread... so I am not putting words in your mouth. You think the prosecutor botched the case on purpose. And you should read that quote that you posted, especially the part that says '..if the prosecution believes...' part.

    The prosecution did the right thing. They did not know if they had a strong enough case to go to trial, so they called for a gj hearing(which is what they are supposed to do).

    The prosecution is not obligated to try and hang innocent men, nor waste taxpayer dollars, nor lose cases, just so that a few liberal minded people feel better. However, you and many others believe that we should just have a trial anyways, even though it is clear that they never had enough to convict Wilson in the first place.

    So then, please tell me (if you are so dumbfounded as to why I pointed out your true intentions) why you would write what you wrote? You, me, and everyone else on this forum knew what you were getting at, so please don't play dumbass with me. Thanks

    ----------

    I suppose, if the blue pill is reality. I'd much rather be here then in Conspiracy Land.- "Where every piece of truth can be twisted into what you want to believe. "

    Have fun with that. ;)
     
  21. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #21
    from your quote
    pretty freaking obvious the prosecutor did not feel he had ENOUGH probable cause, hence the GJ. again the prosecutor seemingly did things right, calling that racist witness was one thing he did in order to try & get a trial.

    ----------

    viagara? who would not?
     
  22. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #22
    Why would he call in a debunked witness who's story verifies the officer's testimony to provide probable cause of misconduct?

    GOD! WHY AM I TALKING ABOUT THIS AGAIN? THIS WHOLE FERGUSON THING IS LIKE CRACK! I KNOW BETTER, BUT I CAN'T STOP!
     
  23. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #23
    because that witness LIED , from post one
    if you can prove wilson lied or perhaps that there was enough doubt about him then he might have been granted a trial.

    how many times are you going to beat this dead horse?

    got to admit, I was singing along :p

     
  24. DonJudgeMe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Location:
    Arizona
    #24
    It's okay. I'll type slow. The prosecution called a "witness" for Wilson to expose her BS story. That way, it looks like Wilson has no solid testimony, because his witnesses stories do not match up. It's called 'EXPOSING'.

    If the prosecution does this successfully, they show that no one's stories match and the grand jury would have no choice but call for a trial. It didn't work. But still, a very cunning attempt, which is more proof that they didn't botch the case. They were trying for a trial.
     
  25. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #25
    We know that. Now here's the thing...

    ...something I need to look up, actually, since I'm arguing without 100% of the facts, admittedly.

    We know he entered the racist remark smeared journal. But did the prosecution mention that he or she was lying, that the FBI debunked his/her testimony before the hearing to the grand jury? Did these facts come up during cross examination (which he or she shouldn't have been cross examined during a damn grand jury hearing, but that's another story altogether)?

    If the prosecution did, then there's nothing wrong with presenting that witness. It would've been a big waste of time, and that's about it. They could've thrown he or she in just to be thorough.

    But if the prosecution failed to mention any of that, and merely presented his or her testimony and her journal (which may or may not admit to the whole thing being a lie) as stated without any countering, then...well...it's another issue entirely. An ugly one.

    It is catchy, isn't it? :p
     

Share This Page