• 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

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...
 
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?
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Oh, I've been "shown"? Really, just where would that have been? In what post did you find the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, RULE 4-3.3 did not pertain?

from the Comments section on Rule 4-3.3
[2] Rule 4-3.3 sets forth the special duties of lawyers as officers of the court to avoid conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process. A lawyer acting as an advocate in an adjudicative proceeding has an obligation to present the client's case with persuasive force. Performance of that duty while maintaining confidences of the client, however, is qualified by the advocate's duty of candor to the tribunal. Consequently, although a lawyer in an adversary proceeding is not required to present an impartial exposition of the law or to vouch for the evidence submitted in a cause, the lawyer must not allow the tribunal to be misled by false statements of law or fact or evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.

See the bolded part with the imperative "must not"?
 
Oh, I've been "shown"? Really, just where would that have been? In what post did you find the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, RULE 4-3.3 did not pertain?

from the Comments section on Rule 4-3.3


See the bolded part with the imperative "must not"?
Do you not understand what you are reading?
1. I told you to consider context of what was being spoken about. You didn't.
2. I showed you what a "tribunal" is defined as. You ignored it.

Again.

"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


Nothing you just said counters this.
 
Last edited:
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.

Those sixteen witnesses either admitted that they didn't actually see the incident and were repeating hear say, or their stories didn't match the physical evidence, then they tried to change their story to fit the physical evidence.

The version of events that you believe is false. It's been proven false and it's time to let it go. There are two cops dead on account the these falsehoods you insist on supporting.
 
Last edited:
No, the most blatant lies were told by Johnson. Yet you apparently have no problem with that.

Give us the lies. The lies that Dorian Johnson stated before the Grand Jury and to FBI agents. His statements are available so please quote his actual words, not someone's 'interpretation' of his testimony.
 
Those sixteen witnesses either admitted that they didn't actually see the incident and were repeating hear say, or their stories didn't match the physical evidence, then they tried to change their story to fit the physical evidence.

The version of events that you believe is false. It's been proven false and it's time to let it go. There are two cops dead on account the these falsehoods you insist on supporting.

Yeah, the right wing hater propaganda machine is obviously quite effective because what you are stating here is all across the rightie blogosphere and certain news outlets. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with some political agenda, now could it? :roll:

Does anyone remember similar outrage when the following happened?

Las Vegas Cop Killers' Bundy Ranch Connection - Business Insider

One of the most steadfast supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy remembers the brief presence at the ranch of Jerad Miller and his wife, Amanda Miller, who are now the two suspects in a Sunday shooting in Las Vegas that left three people dead.

Jerad and Amanda Miller allegedly killed two police officers and one civilian during a Sunday shooting spree before turning their guns on themselves. Reports after the shooting, along with the couple's Facebook profiles, have painted them as supporters of antigovernment causes. Earlier on Monday, video emerged of Jerad Miller speaking at the ranch.

and Rudy Giuliani does know how to stir up the police
September 17, 1992 — Thousands of off-duty police officers thronged around City Hall yesterday, swarming through police barricades to rally on the steps of the hall and blocking traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge for nearly an hour in the most unruly and angry police demonstration in recent memory.

The 300 uniformed officers who were supposed to control the crowd did little or nothing to stop the protesters from jumping barricades, tramping on automobiles, mobbing the steps of City Hall or taking over the bridge. In some cases, the on-duty officers encouraged the protesters.
<snip>
The Mayor also assailed Rudolph W. Giuliani, the probable Republican mayoral candidate, who spoke out against the Mayor at the union rally. Mr. Dinkins said Mr. Giuliani had egged on the protest irresponsibly for political reasons. “He’s clearly, clearly an opportunist,” Mr. Dinkins said. “He’s seizing upon a fragile circumstance in our city for his own political gain.” …
 
So you admit you were wrong? As that isn't just a "red mark", but an actual abrasion with some slight swelling.

141125-darren-wilson-hospital-02_f649b5ebfb8078242cb01614005f6c97.jpg


Oh and don't forget the actual abrasions on his neck as well. D'oh!

74870013.jpg

Oh yeah, a guy who is 6'4", weighs at least 275 lbs and the best evidence after punching the cop twice in the face is a slightly swollen red spot on the cop's right cheek. According to Officer Wilson, he had been hit so hard, he was afraid a third punch would kill him.

I felt that another one of those punches could knock me out or worse.
I mean it was, he's obviously bigger than I was, and stronger and the, I've already
taken two to the face, and I didn't think I would, the third one could be fatal if
he hit me right.
Testimony to Grand Jury, Vol 5, pg 216
 

Attachments

  • grand-jury-volume-5-p216-normal.jpg
    grand-jury-volume-5-p216-normal.jpg
    20.1 KB · Views: 29
Last edited:
Those sixteen witnesses either admitted that they didn't actually see the incident and were repeating hear say, or their stories didn't match the physical evidence, then they tried to change their story to fit the physical evidence.

The version of events that you believe is false. It's been proven false and it's time to let it go. There are two cops dead on account the these falsehoods you insist on supporting.

1. Unless you can prove the witness "lied", they were telling what they believed was the truth. Any eye witness statement should be collaborated with other forensic evidence. A person may make a statement about the event that does not match up. That does not mean the person lied. There statement is what they perceived to be true.

In the case of Michael Brown are there not many witness statements in support of Brown or the LEO that did not match up with other evidence?

2. No. The two dead police officers is because someone decided to kill them. Lumping all LEO's as the same is no different than lumping all people of a certain ethnic group into one group.

Got to ask, can the store owners who have had property damage during the "protests" go and damage some protesters property. Hey there all the same right? :mrgreen:
 
Oh yeah, a guy who is 6'4", weighs at least 275 lbs and the best evidence after punching the cop twice in the face is a slightly swollen red spot on the cop's right cheek. According to Officer Wilson, he had been hit so hard, he was afraid a third punch would kill him.

Testimony to Grand Jury, Vol 5, pg 216
:doh
You have no point.
Your first claim was shown to be false. It wasn't just a red mark.
Do you absurdly believe that the strength of a punch is always able to be seen by the exterior appearance" Especially immediately following it?
I seriously hope not.

If you do, it just shows another flaw in the logic your are employing.
 
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.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken notion that a trial has occurred.

There was no trial. There was no defense or prosecution. There were no clients. There were no advocates.

This Rule that you quote does not apply.
 
Oh yeah, a guy who is 6'4", weighs at least 275 lbs and the best evidence after punching the cop twice in the face is a slightly swollen red spot on the cop's right cheek. According to Officer Wilson, he had been hit so hard, he was afraid a third punch would kill him.

Testimony to Grand Jury, Vol 5, pg 216
No amount of reasoning seems to be able to sway you from your preconceived notion of what took place here, so why don't you lay out exactly what it is you think took place. Is this cop a cold blooded killer of a gentle, kind black man who was surrendering and begging for his life? You clearly WANT this to be an act of racially motivated murder and I suspect that there are deep psychological reason behind such irrationality, but we probably cant go into that here.
 
:doh
You have no point.
Your first claim was shown to be false. It wasn't just a red mark.
Do you absurdly believe that the strength of a punch is always able to be seen by the exterior appearance" Especially immediately following it?
I seriously hope not.

If you do, it just shows another flaw in the logic your are employing.

I wonder why this image was floating around the internets shortly after the shooting of Michael Brown

fake wilson.jpg

The photos of Officer Wilson were shot six to seven hours after the death of Michael Brown, here's a photo of a professional boxer during a match.

file_169736_1_wolak-eye-photo2.jpg

Why are you denying reality?
 
Weird... so some of you are saying it's cool that the PROSECUTOR allowed someone he knew was not telling the truth to testify in defense of the person he's suppose to be trying to get a PROSECUTION on?
 
No amount of reasoning seems to be able to sway you from your preconceived notion of what took place here, so why don't you lay out exactly what it is you think took place. Is this cop a cold blooded killer of a gentle, kind black man who was surrendering and begging for his life? You clearly WANT this to be an act of racially motivated murder and I suspect that there are deep psychological reason behind such irrationality, but we probably cant go into that here.

Sorry, but nope. However, you and others who call yourselves "libertarian" or "conservative" have shown time and time again that you are the ones who are absolutely sure of what happened on that day in Ferguson, MO. I don't KNOW what happened but I can read and I find way too many inconsistencies in the stories vindicating Officer Wilson. This is not to say that Michael Brown was an angel but the sheer volume of knowingly false crap that is and has been spewed forth during the past four months should cause everyone to question the chain of events as described by those who attempt to justify the shooting of a teenager close to his home.

Questions, that is what I have - not knowledge, unlike those who say disgusting words about someone they truly know nothing about but are absolutely positive that Michael Brown deserved to die for being a "thug" No questions from those who KNOW but lots of questions from those who see the inconsistencies
 
Sorry, but nope. However, you and others who call yourselves "libertarian" or "conservative" have shown time and time again that you are the ones who are absolutely sure of what happened on that day in Ferguson, MO. I don't KNOW what happened but I can read and I find way too many inconsistencies in the stories vindicating Officer Wilson. This is not to say that Michael Brown was an angel but the sheer volume of knowingly false crap that is and has been spewed forth during the past four months should cause everyone to question the chain of events as described by those who attempt to justify the shooting of a teenager close to his home.

Questions, that is what I have - not knowledge, unlike those who say disgusting words about someone they truly know nothing about but are absolutely positive that Michael Brown deserved to die for being a "thug" No questions from those who KNOW but lots of questions from those who see the inconsistencies
I didn't know what happened, but unlike liberals, I didn't rush to judgment. I waited for the GJ to decide. It did and I have seen nothing to doubt their conclusion. There is no doubt that you WANT the GJ decision to be wrong. So again, what do you think happened? Is this a racist cop who killed a black man with his hands up or what?
 
I wonder why this image was floating around the internets shortly after the shooting of Michael Brown
Why?
The only pertinent question here is, why and how you think that matters to this discussion?

Again. You claimed it was only a red mark. You were wrong.


The photos of Officer Wilson were shot six to seven hours after the death of Michael Brown, here's a photo of a professional boxer during a match.
More irrelevancy, figures.
Was Wilson struck in that same place?
He wasn't? Then you have no point.
More importantly, not everybody injures the same way. So again, you have no point.

Wilson said he was struck and was able to show that he was. Even had abrasions on his neck. Truthful. End of story.

Dorian claimed Wilson grabbed Brown by the neck, yet nothing is indicated on the autopsy to confirm such. Liar.


Why are you denying reality?
You are the one denying reality.
Not only are you in denial but you are grasping with these irrelevant pics. :doh
 
Weird... so some of you are saying it's cool that the PROSECUTOR allowed someone he knew was not telling the truth to testify in defense of the person he's suppose to be trying to get a PROSECUTION on?
The prosecutor stated he allowed everyone to testify...including (and this is the part a lot of folks want to ignore) those that were quite obviously lying providing statement s AGAINST officer Wilson. His reasoning was that during a grand jury he wanted ALL the testimony in play.
 
You seem to be operating under the mistaken notion that a trial has occurred.

There was no trial. There was no defense or prosecution. There were no clients. There were no advocates.

This Rule that you quote does not apply.

You don't know what you say you know. As another poster on your side of the topic kept pointing out, the grand jury is a tribunal, which for some reason he thought justified the failure by the prosecutor to present evidence showing various witnesses were lying.
 
Back
Top Bottom