Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Key Witness In Michael Brown Case May Not Have Actually Seen Him Die, Report Says

  1. #21
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,849

    Re: Key Witness In Michael Brown Case May Not Have Actually Seen Him Die, Report Says

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    here is the prosecutor's rationale for knowingly putting in the grand jury witness stand a witness he knew was lying about the events she testified about:
    St. Louis prosecutor McCulloch says he knew ‘Witness 40′ lied to Ferguson grand jury
    Seems to me McCulloch did the right thing.

    “If I didn’t put those witnesses on, then we’d be discussing now why I didn’t put those witnesses on,” McCulloch said on Friday. “Even though their statements were not accurate. So my determination was to put everybody on and let the grand jurors assess their credibility, which they did.”
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  2. #22
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,132

    Re: Key Witness In Michael Brown Case May Not Have Actually Seen Him Die, Report Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Seems to me McCulloch did the right thing.
    here is where i find fault with his 'logic':
    “If I didn’t put those witnesses on, then we’d be discussing now why I didn’t put those witnesses on,” McCulloch said on Friday. “Even though their statements were not accurate. So my determination was to put everybody on and let the grand jurors assess their credibility, which they did.”
    regarding witnesses whose testimony he does not know to be absolutely baseless, sure, place them on the stand and allow their credibility to be evaluated
    but when he allowed a witness, whose testimony he knew to be a fabrication, to offer testimony before the grand jurors, that is inexcusable
    and he now tells us that he absolutely knew this juror to be unable to present accurate testimony
    why would he knowingly allow false testimony to be introduced into such a significant matter

    second. his recusal was widely sought. he could have - and should have - recused himself from this matter to avoid that being an element of controversy. but he did not. he allowed himself to remain in a position to shape the outcome of the grand jury. and now we are talking about his failure to recuse himself. why did he not step aside and prevent us from being able to talk about such failure to recuse himself, just as says he did not want to be responsible for anyone talking about his failure to introduce all of the available evidence

    he uses that excuse as the reason for allowing bogus testimony to be presented, but he ignores that as a reason to step aside

    i do hope this is found by the DOJ as ample basis to convene a second grand jury to determine this matter since the first one was so flawed in its administration
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  3. #23
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,849

    Re: Key Witness In Michael Brown Case May Not Have Actually Seen Him Die, Report Says

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    here is where i find fault with his 'logic':

    regarding witnesses whose testimony he does not know to be absolutely baseless, sure, place them on the stand and allow their credibility to be evaluated
    but when he allowed a witness, whose testimony he knew to be a fabrication, to offer testimony before the grand jurors, that is inexcusable
    and he now tells us that he absolutely knew this juror to be unable to present accurate testimony
    why would he knowingly allow false testimony to be introduced into such a significant matter
    You tell us that allowing witnesses whose testimony he knows to be false is "inexcusable"...but you don't tell us why? And you've not shown anything to dispute his stated reason for taking that action. He TOLD you why he knowingly allowed false testimony to be introduced.

    second. his recusal was widely sought. he could have - and should have - recused himself from this matter to avoid that being an element of controversy. but he did not. he allowed himself to remain in a position to shape the outcome of the grand jury. and now we are talking about his failure to recuse himself. why did he not step aside and prevent us from being able to talk about such failure to recuse himself, just as says he did not want to be responsible for anyone talking about his failure to introduce all of the available evidence

    he uses that excuse as the reason for allowing bogus testimony to be presented, but he ignores that as a reason to step aside
    But he DIDN'T shape the outcome of the Grand Jury. He presented ALL the evidence...even the bogus stuff...and left everything up to them. He went to great lengths to NOT influence the Grand Jury. So all of the calls for him to recuse himself were groundless.

    i do hope this is found by the DOJ as ample basis to convene a second grand jury to determine this matter since the first one was so flawed in its administration
    Well, hope all you want...but, as far as I know, the DOJ doesn't have the power to convene a second grand jury. The grand jury is a State function...not a federal function. If I'm wrong about that, then please correct me.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  4. #24
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,662

    Re: Key Witness In Michael Brown Case May Not Have Actually Seen Him Die, Report Says

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    here is the prosecutor's rationale for knowingly putting in the grand jury witness stand a witness he knew was lying about the events she testified about:
    St. Louis prosecutor McCulloch says he knew ‘Witness 40′ lied to Ferguson grand jury
    He didnt put 'A' witness he knew to be lying on the stand, he put several witnesses he knew to be lying. Several changed their stories, several admitted to filling in the blanks or to repeateing what others have told them. Several admit that due to their proximity it is impossible for them to have seen what they alleged they saw.

    People see what they want to see. Sort of like what is happening now. People read that article and due to their own bias are honing in on the ONE witness while ignoring the inconsistencies and outright lies by others.

    And we know why that it is.

  5. #25
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Key Witness In Michael Brown Case May Not Have Actually Seen Him Die, Report Says

    Quote Originally Posted by beefheart View Post
    Again....this is why you need an actual trial...for CROSS EXAMINATION of witnesses.

    That this never got to an actual trial is a travesty, regardless on what you think went down.

    A trial with cross wouldn't have mattered and wasn't needed.

    In this case the Prosecution had direct examination to present to the GJ and the GJ also got to directly examine the witnesses if they had questions.





    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    here is where i find fault with his 'logic':

    regarding witnesses whose testimony he does not know to be absolutely baseless, sure, place them on the stand and allow their credibility to be evaluated
    but when he allowed a witness, whose testimony he knew to be a fabrication, to offer testimony before the grand jurors, that is inexcusable

    There is nothing inexcusable here. It was made clear she was fabricating.


    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    second. his recusal was widely sought. he could have - and should have - recused himself from this matter to avoid that being an element of controversy. but he did not. he allowed himself to remain in a position to shape the outcome of the grand jury
    1. It was not widely sought.
    2. There was no valid reason for recusal and therefore he should not have stepped aside.
    3. He didn't present anything to the GJ. The ADA's did.


    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    for allowing bogus testimony to be presented,
    It was clear she was fabricating. Did you not actually read everything that was presented to the GJ from this witness?


    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    i do hope this is found by the DOJ as ample basis to convene a second grand jury to determine this matter since the first one was so flawed in its administration
    There wasn't a thing flawed here.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  6. #26
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,008

    Re: Key Witness In Michael Brown Case May Not Have Actually Seen Him Die, Report Says

    I just love when the media ( or people) take one witness and use it to try and make a point. She was one of many witnesses called by the GJ. Witness statements need to be collaborated by other forensic evidence.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •