Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56

Thread: St. Louis Grand Jury Heard Witnesses Who Lied, Prosecutor Says

  1. #21
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: St. Louis Grand Jury Heard Witnesses Who Lied, Prosecutor Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    HOW in hell can presenting knowingly false evidence to a jury be considered to "present the entire picture"??

    Because the liars are part of the entire picture.


    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    More on the legal and ethical violations found in McCulloch's actions:

    According to Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, RULE 4-3.3, “A lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.” The next sentence would seem to support disbarrment hearing for McColluch and other attorneys who knew witnesses were lying. 'If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal."

    There is no evidence in the documents released by the St. Louis County prosecutor’s office after the grand jury decision that McCulloch or anyone from his office ever told the jurors to regard any specific witness statements as less credible than others.
    Had you read the evidence, it was clear the person was fabricating.


    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Really? The most blatant lies came from Witness 40 who was the only one who fully corroborated Officer Wilson's story.

    "Witness 40": Exposing A Fraud In Ferguson

    It was clear the person was fabricating. What do you not understand about that?


    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    You rant and rail against some people but ignore the point of this thread - the prosecutor KNEW about the lies and didn't bother to tell the grand juy - WHY?
    This is your confusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Sixteen witnesses said Michael Brown had his hands up when Wilson fired at him.
    Up surrendering was a lie.
    The first three witnesses continually changed their account of that.
    From being up surrendering, to up a little, to finally just one going up a little. Not in surrender.

    Anybody else that may have indicated they were up in surrender was fabricating.
    I think it was witness that didn't show up to testify to the GJ that indicated it looked like he put his hands out to check his injuries.


    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Sixteen also testified that Brown was running away when Wilson first fired at him - not the same sixteen in every case. Only one witness said Brown did not have his hands up when shot, four witnesses said Wilson did not shoot at Brown when he was running away.
    D'oh! The evidence does not allow that to be true. So anybody that says such has made it up.


    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    IN the autopsies, there was one wound in Brown's arm that could have resulted from being hit from running away, the wound in the top of his head shows that he was either falling or already down when that shot hit him.
    "Could have" absent the other evidence which turns that "could have" into a not possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    "punching the cop" - Why then do the photographs taken a few hours later not show evidence of said punching by a guy who was 6' 4" and weighed more than 250 lbs?
    This is a dishonest argument as the pictures do indeed show facial injury.
    Last edited by Excon; 12-21-14 at 01:59 PM.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  2. #22
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,785

    Re: St. Louis Grand Jury Heard Witnesses Who Lied, Prosecutor Says

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I think you should have been on the grand jury. Somehow, you seem to know more than they did, even though you weren't there having all this evidence presented to you. And somehow, you seem to know more about Missouri law than the lawyer who's the chief prosecutor in greater St. Louis. You must have gone to an extraordinary law school.
    Didn't bother to read Post #1, did ya? Here are the basic points again

    1) The prosecutor and his assistants not only allowed witnesses to lie before the grand jury, at the conclusion of the hearings they failed to mention their knowledge regarding the perjury
    2) I posted a link to the law governing the behaviour of attorneys when they gain knowledge of testimony which is false.

    I have no idea what Mr McCulloch and his assistants know of Missouri law but it took me less than five minutes to obtain the information. One could rationally assume that attorneys licensed to practice law in the state of Missouri would have just a little bit of knowledge in regards to the laws of said state or at least know how to use the Google .
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  3. #23
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,785

    Re: St. Louis Grand Jury Heard Witnesses Who Lied, Prosecutor Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    Because the liars are part of the entire picture.
    The prosecutor did not tell the jury members that certain witnesses were lying - AS HE IS REQUIRED TO DO UNDER MISSOURI LAW

    Had you read the evidence, it was clear the person was fabricating.
    What evidence? WHICH person was fabricating? Do you have the slightest idea how many witnesses were called before the grand jury


    It was clear the person was fabricating. What do you not understand about that?
    Which person was fabricating? How do you know that? At the time the grand jury was seated, how were they to know which witness(es) were lying?

    This is your confusion.


    Up surrendering was a lie.
    The first three witnesses continually changed there account of that.
    From being up surrendering, to up a little, to finally just one going up a little. Not in surrender.
    SIXTEEN of the witnesses testified his hands were up

    Anybody else that may have indicated they were up in surrender was fabricating.
    You are making positive assertions without having read the testimony

    I think it was witness that didn't show up to testify to the GJ that indicated it looked like he put his hands out to check his injuries.


    D'oh! The evidence does not allow that to be true. So anybody that says such has made it up.
    When you are running do you hold your arms still or do they swing back and forth, perhaps crossing your body at times?

    "Could have" absent the other evidence which turns that "could have" into a not possible.
    forensic anthropologists disagree

    This is a dishonest argument as the pictures do indeed show facial injury.
    "facial injury" is a red mark on one cheek, no swelling, no abrasion of the skin?
    I don't think you know what you think you know
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  4. #24
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: St. Louis Grand Jury Heard Witnesses Who Lied, Prosecutor Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    I don't think you know what you think you know
    That is you who doesn't.
    All you are doing is mimicking what some know nothing has stated on the interwebs.

    I will address the rest of what you provided in red in few.
    And don't quote me like that again. As I did not say those words in red that you included in a quote of me.


    In the meantime why don't you try reading in context of what you think is authoritative and then try and apply that to a GJ proceeding.
    Maybe you will catch on.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

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

    Re: St. Louis Grand Jury Heard Witnesses Who Lied, Prosecutor Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    The prosecutor did not tell the jury members that certain witnesses were lying - AS HE IS REQUIRED TO DO UNDER MISSOURI LAW
    Required? It would help if you know what you were talking about and not just mimicking some idiots talking points.

    "RULE 4-3.3: Advocate - Candor Toward THE TRIBUNAL"
    That is what you quoted. A rule for the advocate.

    This is how Tribunal is defined.
    (m) "Tribunal" denotes a court, an arbitrator in a binding arbitration proceeding, or a legislative body, administrative agency, or other body acting in an adjudicative capacity. A legislative body, administrative agency, or other body acts in an adjudicative capacity when a neutral official, after the presentation of evidence or legal argument by a party or parties, will render a binding legal decision directly affecting a party's interests in a particular matter.
    Supreme Court Rules - Rule 4 - Rules Governing the Missouri Bar and the Judiciary - Rules of Professional Conduct: Client-Lawyer Relationship - Terminology



    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    What evidence? WHICH person was fabricating? Do you have the slightest idea how many witnesses were called before the grand jury
    Why are you confused to whom we are speaking about?
    Huh?
    Do I need to tell you we are speaking about the very witness you wanted to discuss?

    What evidence? Her entire record that she provided as to what she said happened which was provided to the GJ. Do you really not understand that?



    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Which person was fabricating? How do you know that? At the time the grand jury was seated, how were they to know which witness(es) were lying?
    Oh Gawd. You are going in circles here.
    Had you actually read the evidence it would have been clear she was fabricating. Which is why this is up for discussion in the first place, because it is clear she was fabricating.
    Do you really not understand that?


    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    SIXTEEN of the witnesses testified his hands were up
    Again. Not up surrendering.


    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    You are making positive assertions without having read the testimony
    This is you not knowing what you are talking about.


    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    When you are running do you hold your arms still or do they swing back and forth, perhaps crossing your body at times?
    You have no point. As you were told. That was not possible given the evidence.
    What you should be doing is asking why that is not possible if you do not understand why.


    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    forensic anthropologists disagree

    No they do not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    "facial injury" is a red mark on one cheek, no swelling, no abrasion of the skin?
    You were dishonest, and are being so again.
    It wasn't just a "red mark".
    Last edited by Excon; 12-21-14 at 02:53 PM.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  6. #26
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,618

    Re: St. Louis Grand Jury Heard Witnesses Who Lied, Prosecutor Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    My reply above fits with several recent posts on this thread



    WHY are those who think Michael Brown died during a justified cop killing unable to actually respond to the topic of this thread - The prosecutor knowingly violated the legal code under which he is supposed to act - WHY?

    A grand jury is not supposed to hear "ALL the evidence" particularly when the evidence is known to be false.
    The prosecutor has quite well explained himself. His intent was to allow ALL that claimed they saw things to testify. That includes the woman that admitted she lied to the police about being there and had just repeated a story she had heard from her boyfriend who ALSO hadnt seen the incident. That includes the woman who claimed to have seen the shooting when later it was proven by her testimony there is no way she could see the shooting unless of course she had both telescopic AND x-ray vision.

    Again...why do YOU ignore the fact that people representing both sides were allowed to testify to the grand jury and why do YOU insist on ONLY focusing on the account that disagrees with you.

    Ya know...you really DONT have to answer that...

  7. #27
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,785

    Re: St. Louis Grand Jury Heard Witnesses Who Lied, Prosecutor Says

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    The prosecutor has quite well explained himself. His intent was to allow ALL that claimed they saw things to testify. That includes the woman that admitted she lied to the police about being there and had just repeated a story she had heard from her boyfriend who ALSO hadnt seen the incident. That includes the woman who claimed to have seen the shooting when later it was proven by her testimony there is no way she could see the shooting unless of course she had both telescopic AND x-ray vision.

    Again...why do YOU ignore the fact that people representing both sides were allowed to testify to the grand jury and why do YOU insist on ONLY focusing on the account that disagrees with you.

    Ya know...you really DONT have to answer that...
    I strongly disagree, the prosecutor "has (not) quite well explained" his actions

    I must wonder why some focus only on the aspects of a question for which they 'know' the answer(s). The question is not why the prosecutor allowed various witnesses to lie but specifically why he did not inform the jury as to the testimony which he and his office knew were lies. WHY did he willingly violate the law in this matter?
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  8. #28
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,379

    Re: St. Louis Grand Jury Heard Witnesses Who Lied, Prosecutor Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Prosecutor Robert McCulloch knew some of the witnesses were lying when they testified before the grand jury. Yet, he doesn't intend to bring charges of perjury against any one.



    HOW in hell can presenting knowingly false evidence to a jury be considered to "present the entire picture"??

    More on the legal and ethical violations found in McCulloch's actions:

    According to Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, RULE 4-3.3, “A lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.” The next sentence would seem to support disbarrment hearing for McColluch and other attorneys who knew witnesses were lying. 'If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal."

    There is no evidence in the documents released by the St. Louis County prosecutor’s office after the grand jury decision that McCulloch or anyone from his office ever told the jurors to regard any specific witness statements as less credible than others.


    any prosecutor under the British common law model must present ALL the pertinent evidence, even those who lie. It is not for the lawyers in the courtroom to determine who is lying, but the jury. In countless trials I have seen the judge instruct the jury to "discount" the veracity of certain testimony, in one case the judge said of the police officers testifying their "evidence was not consistent with the truth."
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

  9. #29
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: St. Louis Grand Jury Heard Witnesses Who Lied, Prosecutor Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    WHY did he willingly violate the law in this matter?
    You have already been shown what you provided does not pertain.
    So unless you have some other rule to cite you are making a false claim.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  10. #30
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,618

    Re: St. Louis Grand Jury Heard Witnesses Who Lied, Prosecutor Says

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    I strongly disagree, the prosecutor "has (not) quite well explained" his actions

    I must wonder why some focus only on the aspects of a question for which they 'know' the answer(s). The question is not why the prosecutor allowed various witnesses to lie but specifically why he did not inform the jury as to the testimony which he and his office knew were lies. WHY did he willingly violate the law in this matter?
    Of COURSE you strongly disagree because you want to see Wilsons head on a stick.

    I've never once seen you express dismay about the number of people that lied concerning the argument you support. Oh...but the one juror that may have been lying based on the change in her reason for being there (not her story)...see...you are all over that.

    Cuz...well...the 'cuz' part is obvious.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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