• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,822
Reaction score
8,296
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
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.

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

Some witnesses were clearly lying when they spoke to a grand jury about the August police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., according to St. Louis County prosecuting attorney Robert McCulloch. In an interview about the case Friday, the prosecutor says he won't seek perjury charges.
<snip>
Lying Under Oath And Perjury

"It's a legitimate issue. But in the situation — again, because of the manner in which we did it — we're not going to file perjury charges against anyone. There were people who came in and yes, absolutely lied under oath. Some lied to the FBI — even though they're not under oath, that's another potential offense, a federal offense.

"But I thought it was much more important to present the entire picture and say listen, this is what this witness says he saw — even though there was a building between where the witness says he was and where the events occurred, so they couldn't have seen that. Or the physical evidence didn't support what the witness was saying. And it went both directions. ...

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.
 
Dorian Johnson's testimony was nothing but lies and is what fueled the initial riots and perpetuated the false narrative that he was killed for being black.

No charges against him apparently ( there should be )

MBs step Father inciting a riot and there's no charges.

Its BS
 
If charges were to be enacted on these people, riots would continue.
 
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 isn't about what actually happened. In these peoples' eyes, he is guilty, and the testimony from someone in their own community is Truth. Nothing else to it. I know, it is wrong, but it is the way it is.
 
Dorian Johnson's testimony was nothing but lies and is what fueled the initial riots and perpetuated the false narrative that he was killed for being black.

No charges against him apparently ( there should be )

MBs step Father inciting a riot and there's no charges.

Its BS


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?
 
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
The forensics, science, and 3 autopsies including the independent autopsy conducted at the families request all confirmed the testimony of 7 other individuals that back the officers story. Yet you ignore those realities and the lies told by people that support the story you like. Speaks volumes...about you.
 
The forensics, science, and 3 autopsies including the independent autopsy conducted at the families request all confirmed the testimony of 7 other individuals that back the officers story. Yet you ignore those realities and the lies told by people that support the story you like. Speaks volumes...about you.

I don't think you've been reading the same documents I've read. Some witnesses, not seven, verified PARTS of Wilson's story though not ALL of it. Sixteen witnesses said Michael Brown had his hands up when Wilson fired at him. 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.

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.
 
If charges were to be enacted on these people, riots would continue.

That's no excuse to not press charges.

Apparently if we get a Mob together thats big enough there are no laws ?
 
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?

You're the one ranting here, not me.

You're willing to ignore the OBVIOUS perjury that led to the violence and destruction so you can continue to push this ridiculous " killed by Cop " narrative.
 
You're the one ranting here, not me.

You're willing to ignore the OBVIOUS perjury that led to the violence and destruction so you can continue to push this ridiculous " killed by Cop " narrative.

Which OBVIOUS perjury are you talking about? The most blatant one revealed so far is Witness 40, who wasn't even at the site of the shooting. Then there was the witness who was at least in Ferguson but in a building located where they couldn't see the shooting. Give us the obvious lies, the lies that have been verified, not the ones which have been wandering about certain websites.
 
I don't think you've been reading the same documents I've read. Some witnesses, not seven, verified PARTS of Wilson's story though not ALL of it. Sixteen witnesses said Michael Brown had his hands up when Wilson fired at him. 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.

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.
The forensics evidence and autopsies PROVE the Brown supportive testimony to be a lie. Remove bias and go with the science...and what you have is the fact that a big guy did a stupid thing, was punching the cop while the cop was seated in the car and went for his gun, which went off in his car.

It wasnt eye witness testimony that sealed the deal...it was the evidence. Johnsons claims are proven false. Several of the witnesses that first claimed he had his hands up later changed their story. Some admitted they didnt see it but were filling in the blanks based on what 'happens all the time' or what they heard.

But all you care about are the positions or statements that support your story.
 
The forensics evidence and autopsies PROVE the Brown supportive testimony to be a lie. Remove bias and go with the science...and what you have is the fact that a big guy did a stupid thing, was punching the cop while the cop was seated in the car and went for his gun, which went off in his car.

It wasnt eye witness testimony that sealed the deal...it was the evidence. Johnsons claims are proven false. Several of the witnesses that first claimed he had his hands up later changed their story. Some admitted they didnt see it but were filling in the blanks based on what 'happens all the time' or what they heard.

But all you care about are the positions or statements that support your story.

Believe what you wish but my readings have caused me to hold a much more ambiguous view of what happened that day in Ferguson. The evidence as in many criminal cases is far less definitive than the interpretation favoured by those who see the case as a "street thug" getting his just desserts. The pathologist who was asked to review the autopsy findings did not agree with the statements of the prosecutor.

"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?

Why did the prosecutor not tell the grand jury about the lies and false testimony?
 
Which OBVIOUS perjury are you talking about? The most blatant one revealed so far is Witness 40, who wasn't even at the site of the shooting. Then there was the witness who was at least in Ferguson but in a building located where they couldn't see the shooting. Give us the obvious lies, the lies that have been verified, not the ones which have been wandering about certain websites.

Lol !!

Dorian Johnson's multiple lies are the most blatant.

You know, the lies that all of the Protest, violence and looting were based on ?
 
Lol !!

Dorian Johnson's multiple lies are the most blatant.

You know, the lies that all of the Protest, violence and looting were based on ?

Post the "multiple lies" or it didn't happen as you dream it happened. Do you know where to find Johnson's actual testimony?
 
Post the "multiple lies" or it didn't happen as you dream it happened. Do you know where to find Johnson's actual testimony?

Shot in the back , shot wit his hands up, multiple lies by omission, you name it.

You know, everything the physical evidence contradicted.
 
Believe what you wish but my readings have caused me to hold a much more ambiguous view of what happened that day in Ferguson. The evidence as in many criminal cases is far less definitive than the interpretation favoured by those who see the case as a "street thug" getting his just desserts. The pathologist who was asked to review the autopsy findings did not agree with the statements of the prosecutor.

"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?

Why did the prosecutor not tell the grand jury about the lies and false testimony?
Believe what your preconceived bias already tells you. A grand jury heard ALL the evidence and obviously didnt start off with "by gawd guilty!!! Now lets hear the evidence!"

Hands up was a lie. Getting shot in the back was a lie. But all you hear is what you want to hear.
 
Believe what your preconceived bias already tells you. A grand jury heard ALL the evidence and obviously didnt start off with "by gawd guilty!!! Now lets hear the evidence!"

Hands up was a lie. Getting shot in the back was a lie. But all you hear is what you want to hear.

Thought so. You haven't read any of the testimony have you?

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.
 
I don't think you've been reading the same documents I've read. Some witnesses, not seven, verified PARTS of Wilson's story though not ALL of it. Sixteen witnesses said Michael Brown had his hands up when Wilson fired at him. 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.

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.

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.
 
HOW in hell can presenting knowingly false evidence to a jury be considered to "present the entire picture"??
:doh
Because the liars are part of 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.
Had you read the evidence, it was clear the person was fabricating.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


"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:
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 :roll: .
 
:doh
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

:doh
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
 
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. :shrug:
 
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. :doh

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



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?



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?


SIXTEEN of the witnesses testified his hands were up
Again. Not up surrendering.


You are making positive assertions without having read the testimony
This is you not knowing what you are talking about.


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.


forensic anthropologists disagree
:lamo
No they do not.


"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:
Back
Top Bottom