• 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!

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

whysoserious

whysoserious

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
8,170
Reaction score
3,199
Location
Charlotte, NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Key Witness In Michael Brown Case May Not Have Actually Seen Him Die, Report Says
A new report from The Smoking Gun calls into question the testimony and character of a grand jury witness who corroborated police officer Darren Wilson's account of shooting Michael Brown.The Smoking Gun confirmed that Sandra McElroy, a 45-year-old St. Louis resident who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, is Witness 40, the person whose testimony aligned with Wilson's account of how he killed Brown, an unarmed black teenager, in Ferguson, Missouri, in August.
Click to expand...

...
McElroy's journal, where she described seeing the shooting, says she went to Florissant, Missouri, a town near Ferguson, on the morning of Brown's death to "understand the Black race better so I stop calling Blacks Niggers and Start calling them People." And in a subsequent entry describing the Brown-Wilson encounter, McElroy describes Brown as a "big kid" who "started running right at the cop" and "wouldn't stop" even after the first three gunshots.
Click to expand...

I didn't see this posted yet in the MSM or Non-MSM area, so I figured I'd throw it up. I'm not sure it changes anything, other than that prosecutor clearly didn't do a good job vetting his "witness" (though I'm not sure why the prosecutor would call a witness that defends the defendant - is that normal?).
 
What does it matter if she is bipolar?
 
Unless you can prove that this witness is lying I don't see how this would lead anywhere. What does worry me are the people who are going to harp on the obviously not well person for her medical condition.
 
CMPancake said:
Unless you can prove that this witness is lying I don't see how this would lead anywhere. What does worry me are the people who are going to harp on the obviously not well person for her medical condition.
Click to expand...

So..

But The Smoking Gun reported that McElroy changed her story about why she was in Ferguson, has a history of making racist comments online and once inserted herself into another case by lying to police. The outlet also said McElroy "was nowhere near Canfield Drive on the Saturday afternoon Brown was shot to death."
Click to expand...

Seems like something that should have been cleared. I think there were other people around who would side with Wilson - so this probably doesn't change anything. This is more about the prosecution, why they chose to defend the defendant during the grand jury, and why they wouldn't vet a witness like this.
 
whysoserious said:
So..



Seems like something that should have been cleared. I think there were other people around who would side with Wilson - so this probably doesn't change anything. This is more about the prosecution, why they chose to defend the defendant during the grand jury, and why they wouldn't vet a witness like this.
Click to expand...

So, you want to deploy the thought police?
 
whysoserious said:
Her being bipolar is probably one of the less important aspects of the story.
Click to expand...

It went Her Name, Her Age, Where She Lives and then She Has Bipolar. If it wasn't important, they would not have mentioned it whatsoever let alone in the first sentence specifically naming the woman. They're positing that her bipolar has lead to her being a person of unbecoming integrity. It is still very taboo in the U.S. for a person with a mental illness. The mentioning of her born with ailment is meant to reflect that negative societal POV so the court of public opinion can dismiss her entirely because she's a crazy person because she has bipolar. Her previous antics would have sufficed without needing to pull her mental illness into the equation because the average American isn't able to differentiate the difference between the illness itself and the people that are incessantly plagued by it.
 
Jango said:
It went Her Name, Her Age, Where She Lives and then She Has Bipolar. If it wasn't important, they would not have mentioned it whatsoever let alone in the first sentence specifically naming the woman. They're positing that her bipolar has lead to her being a person of unbecoming integrity. It is still very taboo in the U.S. for a person with a mental illness. The mentioning of her born with ailment is meant to reflect that negative societal POV so the court of public opinion can dismiss her entirely because she's a crazy person because she has bipolar. Her previous antics would have sufficed without needing to pull her mental illness into the equation because the average American isn't able to differentiate the difference between the illness itself and the people that are incessantly plagued by it.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with what you are saying. You're probably right that they could have left it out.
 
whysoserious said:
Key Witness In Michael Brown Case May Not Have Actually Seen Him Die, Report Says

...


I didn't see this posted yet in the MSM or Non-MSM area, so I figured I'd throw it up. I'm not sure it changes anything, other than that prosecutor clearly didn't do a good job vetting his "witness" (though I'm not sure why the prosecutor would call a witness that defends the defendant - is that normal?).
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Do you think there was a trial? Is that why you fault the prosecutor for not vetting his witness? If so, you really don't understand what happened.

There was no trial. There was a Grand Jury. The prosecutor presented all the evidence relevant to the case so the Grand Jury could decide if there was anything that SHOULD go to trial. The prosecutor wasn't trying to defend Wilson because Wilson wasn't a defendant.

Now...in regard to that article you posted, I have a profound dislike of...and I tend to distrust...articles that say one thing in the headline and another, contradictory, thing in the body of the article. It makes me want to ignore everything I'm reading in the article.

Here is the headline with my highlights:

Key Witness In Michael Brown Case May Not Have Actually Seen Him Die, Report Says
Click to expand...

Here are the weasel words in the article:

Since the identities of the grand jurors in the Darren Wilson case are secret, it is difficult to calculate the degree to which McElroy's testimony affected the outcome or how seriously prosecutors considered it.
Click to expand...

So, my question is...was she a "key witness"...or not?

Also, it wasn't up to the prosecutor to consider her testimony. That was up to the Grand Jury members. It sounds like the prosecutor presented her testimony...as he should have done. I'm guessing the Grand Jury members considered ALL the evidence that was presented to them before they made their decision.

In any case, whysoserious...there is one thing you got right in your post: This doesn't change anything.
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
Key Witness In Michael Brown Case May Not Have Actually Seen Him Die, Report Says

...


I didn't see this posted yet in the MSM or Non-MSM area, so I figured I'd throw it up. I'm not sure it changes anything, other than that prosecutor clearly didn't do a good job vetting his "witness" (though I'm not sure why the prosecutor would call a witness that defends the defendant - is that normal?).
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...


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

...


I didn't see this posted yet in the MSM or Non-MSM area, so I figured I'd throw it up. I'm not sure it changes anything, other than that prosecutor clearly didn't do a good job vetting his "witness" (though I'm not sure why the prosecutor would call a witness that defends the defendant - is that normal?).
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

It would not be normal in a trial. Truth be told not in a grand jury either, based on my reading of the evidence I do not believe there was ever a case to be made against Darren Wilson in a criminal sense, frankly the grand jury was a Showboat meant to make it look like the government was doing something, the prosecutor knew there was no case and did not want to bring it to trial meeting he was between a rock and a hard place.

Really the grand jury is an archaic system. Back before there was a system of government prosecutors, A party who was aggrieved in a criminal sense could file charges himself against the offending party, The grand jury was to make sure that the guy filing the charges wasn't full of it. In an era of professional prosecutors and judges the grand jury should really be on its way out. My state does not even use grand jury's at all except to investigate corruption by public officials in rare instances. In this case the grand jury was merely a political tool to calm down the initial wave of civil disorder after the slaying of Michael Brown
 
beefheart said:
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.
Click to expand...
The defense would've destroyed the prosecutions witnesses in such a case. There was zero case against Wilson, in fact really if Wilson got to trial he would win, and then sue the DA for malicious prosecution. If a judge didn't throw out the charges long before. There were a multitude of witnesses who supported Wilson's side, the witnesses on browns side either tell a story contradicted by physical evidence or in one case, was a criminal co-conspirator of Brown's
 
Mycroft said:
Do you think there was a trial? Is that why you fault the prosecutor for not vetting his witness? If so, you really don't understand what happened.

There was no trial. There was a Grand Jury. The prosecutor presented all the evidence relevant to the case so the Grand Jury could decide if there was anything that SHOULD go to trial. The prosecutor wasn't trying to defend Wilson because Wilson wasn't a defendant.

Now...in regard to that article you posted, I have a profound dislike of...and I tend to distrust...articles that say one thing in the headline and another, contradictory, thing in the body of the article. It makes me want to ignore everything I'm reading in the article.

Here is the headline with my highlights:



Here are the weasel words in the article:



So, my question is...was she a "key witness"...or not?

Also, it wasn't up to the prosecutor to consider her testimony. That was up to the Grand Jury members. It sounds like the prosecutor presented her testimony...as he should have done. I'm guessing the Grand Jury members considered ALL the evidence that was presented to them before they made their decision.

In any case, whysoserious...there is one thing you got right in your post: This doesn't change anything.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that "key witnesses" which led to the hands in the air and shot in the back while fleeing mantra were known to be lying as well yet those folks being allowed to testify was not mentioned in the (unbiased?) OP article. Many wanted a Zimmerman/Martin re-run trial where the prosecutor bowed to public pressure (on one side only) and indicted a man that would surely not be convicted skipping the GJ phase entirely.
 
beefheart said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. This is why you need a Grand Jury. GJ's examine the evidence and make recommendations as to whether the evidence is sufficient to bother with a trial.

GJ's are the middel level. In Zimmerman, the first level, the prosecutor, looked at the evidence and decided no. Then a year and millions dollars later a jury trial agreed. In Wilson, the prosecutor decided to move to the second level, not because he necessarily thought he had a case, but rather to avoid another Zimmerman.

The system worked. That you didn't like the outcome is the problem.
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...

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.”
Click to expand...
 
Mycroft said:
Seems to me McCulloch did the right thing.
Click to expand...

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.”
Click to expand...

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
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
beefheart said:
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.
Click to expand...
:doh
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.




justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...
:doh
There is nothing inexcusable here. It was made clear she was fabricating.


justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...
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.


justabubba said:
for allowing bogus testimony to be presented,
Click to expand...
It was clear she was fabricating. Did you not actually read everything that was presented to the GJ from this witness?


justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...
:doh There wasn't a thing flawed here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom