should brown prosecutor be charged?

No, defense lawyers. Defense lawyers are the ones with the low burden of proof and therefore the incentive - mandate even - to call unreliable witnesses. A witness who they doubt is telling the truth may still have enough credibility to create doubt in the eyes of the jury. Their mandate practically requires them to call witnesses who they believe are lying. Prosecution witnesses, on the other hand, must be believed beyond a reasonable doubt. Jeez, why are you pretending to have no idea how the legal system works?

Agreed.

No. If that were true, every time a witness commits perjury, the person who put them on the stand would be liable. The reality here is the opposite: McCulloch demanded the truth from the witnesses he called and challenged them when they lied. There was no subornation of perjury; he did exactly the opposite.

I asked you to clarify and you didn't, but I still think I figured out what you mean:

The officer received no protection. He was maliciously persecuted by mob rule. He lost his job and was not compensated for it. His life is basically ruined. There never should have been a grand jury hearing in the first place. His city let him down -- they failed to protect him.

Is that what you meant by "who gets this process"? I suppose the answer today is that any time a non-black man kills a black man, they can expect to be maliciously prosecuted/persecuted by an an angry mob of thugs and have their life ruined. Yay, justice!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Malicious fantasy - lie, even, since you put it in quotes and you damn sure know you made it up. He never said or even implied any such thing. In fact, he did the opposite: he demanded the truth from his witnesses and cross examined them when he believed they were lying.

Nonsense. I posted a coherent, complete, concise logical description of the prosecutor's options in post #33 and you didn't even bother responding.

Did you forget who started this thread and why? The thread was started to make accusations that a crime was committed. Responses can only be responses to that. The burden of proof and responsibility for providing a sustained, coherent argument lays on you and your side. I can do nothing more than use my truth racket to return your crap, one flaming ball at a time.

Lol -- you half agreed! Again, you (and your side) are the one making the claim of a crime and doing so with one-liners of "detached blocks of information, personal superstitions asserted as fact, and so on." I can only respond to what you give me.

And by the way, now that we have the truth in front of us -- now that we all know for sure that McColluch demanded the truth from the witnesses, these continued claims of subornation of perjury aren't mere fantasises anymore: you are lying, just like Bells and iceaurea. You can't hide behind empty fantasy anymore. Acknowledge the truth!

Indeed: in this case, the lawyer in question
1. Swore the witness an oath to tell the truth.
2. Asked for the truth.
3. Challenged the known or believed lies.

There is nothing anywhere resembling subornation of perjury in there. It's exactly the opposite.

You and your side are the ones making things up as they go along, hiding in fantasy and ignoring the truth as best you can to try to perpetuate the fantasy. With the previous list, I have indeed turned the tables because while we started this thread with just your side's baseless fantasy accusations, now we know those accusations are false. You can't hide behind ignorance anymore. Trying to do so when the truth is staring you in the face is lying.

*Ahem*: You are the one alleging a crime occurred. So you are the one who must provide evidence of it. Even if I had provided nothing, it would still be enough to point out (as I did at the beginning) that you are not providing evidence to support your accusations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The quotes don't match: Wishing it won't make it true. The prosecutor demanded the truth from his witnesses and challenged them when he didn't get it. That's the complete opposite of subornation of perjury.

In particular:

In fact, the prosecutor did the exact opposite of the first and second required components:
1. He demanded the truth.
2. He intended to have the [grand] jury hear the truth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How so?

You're just making random, dysfuncitonal assertions because you think they sound good, or something like that.

Show us how McCulloch "demanded the truth", and show us how McCulloch "challenged" Witness 40, especially since he invited her back for a second show.

You need to demonstrate the second sentence.

He did not lose his job, he quit.

Show us that his life is ruined.

The question of a grand jury hearing is an interesting one; McCulloch could have said no, but it is likely the federal government would have conducted one. Instead, he chose to convene one and has every appearance of tanking it.

Reciting racist myths doesn't help; pretending ignorance of the subject doesn't help. There's been quite a discussion about these cases of late, and it is, I suppose, not at all surprising that this far along there are people who insist on rehashing issues as if they have never been addressed. The question of Wilson's extraordinary protection has been explored; if you expect your poor-officer fantasy to be taken seriously, you'll need to address those points.

Meanwhile, some of us get sick and tired of late-coming ignorance demanding that we reset the discussion to August.

He wasn't supposed to put them on the stand. He has acknowledged that he knew they were lying. He has admitted deliberately breaking the law.

Quit lying. That wasn't coherent, complete, concise, or logical.

Here:

1. Present only credible pro-prosecution witnesses. Receive criticism from you-know-who for presenting a weak case. — What does that mean? Indeed, indicting police is extraordinarily difficult; McCulloch could have run a straight grand jury that looks like any other and expected a refusal to indict—the presupposition of good faith for police officers is huge. It is also well known that this option, presenting only credible pro-prosecution witnesses, is the process most subjects of grand jury investigations get.

2. Present a vigorous pro-prosecution case (all anti-cop witnesses, even the perjurors). Risk disbarment/lawsuit for suborning perjury and malicious prosecution. (See: Zimmerman prosecution). — Risk disbarment? Here you're acknowledging that putting known liars on the stand is problematic. Please try to stay consistent.

3. Present all witnesses from both sides. Receive hypocritical criticism for presenting the half of the perjurors that you-know-who doesn't like, but not the other half. — Yet here he's not risking disbarment? Bullshit.

4. Present only pro-defense witnesses. As a prosecutor? He'd be strung-up! — Well, hopefully we would give him due process, first.

5. Decline to prosecute at all because he knew the evidence didn't favor it. Receive criticism from you-know-who. (see: Zimmerman prosecution) — From who? God? I'd love to see that.​

It's not complete; it's not concise; it's not coherent; it's not logical.

See, part of the problem with wasting our time on people of your irrational disposition is that we do, in effect, validate your ignorance and hatred as something worthy of discussion.

You should probably go get one, then.

Show us your "truth".

Show us the challenge.

I don't know, Russ, some of us have been talking about substantial issues for months, and here you come with a tattered plastic bag full of ignorant bullshit, and what, really, do you think we owe you for your efforts to paint the walls with it?

How many times do we need to reset the discussion to square zero for those who simply aren't capable of keeping up.

See "An Inconvenient Truth" #42-46↗, for starters.

And then answer the question: Who else gets that process?

If everything was as neat and straightforward as you need to pretend, why the hell would McCulloch go about it this way?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unfortunately, all this Ferguson nonsense has diverted attention from real problems and real cases of police misconduct (e.g. the Garnered case in New York).

 

It was your claim: "McCulloch facilitated her perjury by choosing to put her [a liar] on the stand." So if that is true, then any other time a lawyer knowingly puts a liar on the stand without challenging the lie, it it subornation of perjury. Again: that's SOP for defense lawyers and would be a big problem if what you suggest were a reality.

In the link I provided above:

"What you are saying you saw isn't forensically possible based on the evidence," a prosecutor said.

The witness acknowledged making up testimony.

"Are you telling us that the only thing that's true about all of your statements before this is that you saw that police officer shoot him at point blank range?" a grand juror asked

"Yes," he answered.

McCulloch challenged the testimony and was able to force a lying witness to admit lying.

"Witness 40's testimony supported Wilson's version of events. Yet prosecutors questioned whether she was even in Ferguson on the day Brown was killed... [same link]

Well gee, it sounds like we are in agreement on that: you agree that McCulloch didn't want to pursue the grand jury indictment? And that another body would have over-stepped its bounds to intervene to go after him? I think we're in complete agreement! Yes, it is speculation because we don't have a statement (as far as I know) from McCulloch that he didn't think charges were warranted. However in the Zimmerman case, we know it for sure due to the sequence of events: police/prosecutors initially declined to press charges, but the state took over after public pressure to indict and pressed charges.

Since it was Bell's claim you are picking-up, I'll let you prove that. Prove that he left completely of his own free will (I, of course, know the exact truth here, but you'll never learn how to learn if I don't force you to substantiate your own claims). While you are at it, you may as well provide some evidence for:

We can get into that in more detail after you look up how he lost his job -- and you can explain how he might find another one, but again, the historical example here is Zimmerman: he's been impoverished and basically in hiding since his malicious prosecution.

You need to follow your own mandate and substantiate that.

Because the case was very weak (to put it charitably) and most if not all of the pro-prosecution witnesses were not credible, such a path would have resulted in a very short hearing that led to no charges.

No: the difference there is that he would present the liars as if they were telling the truth, instead of challenging their lies. Presenting liars to testify as if they were telling the truth is what the Zimmerman prosecutor did.

So you say, but yet you have not presented the evidence for your claim. If you can't prove he suborned perjury, there's no reason to disbar him. After all, the Zimmerman prosecutor presented liars as if they were telling the truth - much worese than what is claimed of McColluch (except in this thread, of course) - and she didn't get disbarred.

You, Bells, iceaura, MSNBC, Obama, etc. Similar to when prosecutors initially declined to prosecute Zimmerman. That's the mob rule I was referring to above and you appeared to support. ​

What options did I leave out?

The next several are repeats of what I showed above, so I'll omit them.

You only need to provide your evidence once in this thread.

You didn't pay enough attention to my explanation in/of the list above. I explained why he did what he did. I'll sum-up as I did for Bells: it's your fault.

 

Backing-up a touch:

Ok, I'll bite. Here's my offer (Tiassa and Bells, it is open to you too):

Your claim above is that McColluch failed to challenge the lies of at least one pro-Wilson witness in the hearing, in order to make Wilson appear more innocent. And if that is true, it means that there is no evidence that he didn't suborn perjury from that witness.

Yes, I recognize that it is impractical for you to prove this negative because it would require you to post the entirety of the testimony in the thread. So on this and only this issue, I'll relieve you of your burden. All you have to do is tell me which pro-Wilson witness, post a link to that witness's testimony and a direct quote and link to McColluch's later admission that the witness lied (or some other clear evidence of the lie). That at least provides the possibility that you didn't just fabricate the claim from thin air. It provides the possibility that you actually read the testimony and know what it does and doesn't say. Then, *I* will read the testimony and either:

A. Post a quote where McColluch does challenge the witness's credibility.
B. Acnowledge that no such quote exists.

We can set a time limit of, say, 24 or 48 hours for me to respond, if you wish (during which time, I'll refrain from responding to anything else). Potential outcomes:

A. If I provide such a quote or you are unable to even provide the required references, you must acknowledge you simply made-up your claim.
B. If I fail to provide a quote or acknowledge it in the time limit, your claim is vindicated.

Now, this wouldn't prove he did suborn perjury, just that it can't be affirmatively proven that he didn't, since such an agreement would have happened outside the hearing and off the record. But at least after that, I could leave you to fantasize about what they agreed to in private conversations neither of us will ever know about. Either way, thread over. Deal?

 

Over-stepped its bounds?

You are aware the civil rights do, in fact, exist on a federal level and can be so enforced?

I mean, seriously, in the middle of a massive racism controversy in these United States, you're going to try a states' rights tack? That's even worse than the three-fifths redistricting plan that failed in Virginia. At least in that case, well, it was Virginia, so it made some sort of sense.

This is why discussions with your brand of paranoia and hatred are so problematic; seriously, must we hold a remedial Civics course for every American controversy?

 

Except it was the reason he gave for his resignation:

“Citing threats of violence, Darren Wilson, who fatally shot Michael Brown Aug. 9, resigned from the Ferguson Police Department on Saturday.
Wilson, 28, whom a St. Louis County grand jury declined to indict in connection with the shooting, had worked for the city’s police department for six years.

In a telephone interview Saturday evening, Wilson said he resigned after the police department told him it had received threats that violence would ensue if he remained an employee.

“I’m resigning of my own free will,” he said. “I’m not willing to let someone else get hurt because of me.”

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/darren-wilson-resigns-from-ferguson-police-department/article_a8cfa6e7-408c-520c-b9d2-de2a75e8983d.html

Of the "GoFundMe" pages for Wilson, here is what the organisers said about the money after both official ones were shut down after they had raised closed to half a million dollars:
Rest assured, if you donated to either GoFundMe it will go to Officer Darren Wilson. We are constantly trying to find the best ways to support Officer Darren Wilson as we know our supporters want to keep helping as best they can.
There are other fund raising campaigns, and yes, all of it goes to Officer Wilson.
And it is still ongoing. He could make around $1 million.. [/QUOTE]
No, you guess again. An unnamed secret source without any supporting evidence is hardly convincing Bells. As I said before, there are nonprofit groups who were collecting money for Wilson’s defense should he have faced legal charges.

The money these groups collected belongs to those organizations, not Officer Wilson as you have alleged. How much if any of those funds Officer Wilson has or will receive remains an unknown. Unknown secret sources with no evidence just isn’t going to cut it for most people.

We have grand juries for everyone, ordinary and extraordinary alike. The special treatment McCulloch gave was to hold a grand jury hearing and to provide the grand jury with all the evidence. Normally, a case with so little evidence indicating Wilson’s culpability would have been summarily dismissed by the prosecutor without further review. It wouldn’t have made it to the grand jury and there would have not been a grand jury investigation.

Because of the passions, the protests, the riots, McCulloch placed it before the grand jury to provide an extra level of scrutiny. McCulloch was very careful with this case to avoid doing anything which might exacerbate tensions and to minimize recriminations.

Seriously Bells…more ad hominem?

You were quite clear, but you are still not making any sense for all the reasons previously given. You are a passionate person Bells and that is a very good thing. I wish more Americans shared your passion. I wish the folks protesting in Ferguson had as much passion every day of the year as you clearly do. I wish all Americans had enough passion to inform themselves and show up at the ballot box every few years to cast their ballot and take responsibility for their community and their nation.

But when you are wrong, you are wrong, passionate or not. There are better cases upon which to hoist your petard. If you are going to hoist your petard, make sure you hoist it against the right wall. And this isn’t the right wall. There are better walls, better examples, of police abuse and incompetence (e.g. Garner).

Well we don’t know why the one juror wants an exemption from the law because that juror cannot speak. And it would be wrong for anyone to put words in the juror’s mouth. He or she could have a legitimate reason, but that reason isn't apparent in his/her filing. It could also be profitable, this juror wants to sell some books or a make a movie deal a la the Zimmerman juror who voted for acquittal.

Yes, and I didn’t find anything nefarious in the suit.

The operative words are, “plaintiff’s impression and “Plaintiff’s perspective”. There was no proof of anything untoward. “Differently” isn’t illegal or unethical. I think the lawsuit will be summarily dismissed. Nothing in the lawsuit is illegal and the law is pretty clear. And the plaintiff has no grounds for a lawsuit as the plaintiff has not been damaged. So I think your hopes are misplaced.

Well some people are “fed up” with perceived police brutality. I don’t know of anyone who is in favor of police brutality when it occurs and it does occur, the Garner case being a case that I have repeatedly referenced as an example of police brutality and incompetence. There is no way, that should have escalated and the choke hold should not have been used. But no one is paying much attention to the Garner case. Ferguson is sucking up all the attention and liberals are looking pretty silly to most Americans. Ferguson has been a boon to right-wing nuts like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, et al. This is the kind of stuff that led to the Reagan revolution and America’s dramatic shift to the right in the 80’s. And we are still dealing with the aftermath of that tragedy, and we probably will be for at least another decade.

Yes we shall.

Except, he didn’t break the law, and that is why the appropriate authorities, the bar , the state attorney general and the US attorney general have not and will not prosecute him. And you keep forgetting the grand jury is an investigative unit. Their job is to examine evidence and talk to people who claim to be witnesses. People lie to law enforcement officers every day, and they lie to grand juries as well. Grand juries are not dumb.

LOL

 

You have a crystal ball Bells. You know McCulloch’s true intent? McCulloch said he treated the cased differently because of all the attention and rioting in the streets. Your accusations are not consistent with what McCulloch has said publically. Nor am I missing the “subtleties” you are trying to create.
It was a wise move on McCulloch's part to convene the grand jury and present all the evidence to the grand jury. McCulloch went out of his way to ensure all the evidence was presented before the grand jury and let the grand jury decide if probable cause existed. And when you accuse McCulloch of operating as Officer Wilson’s legal counsel, you my friend are the one who is treating the grand jury as a criminal trial jury, and it isn’t. As has been explained umpteen times, the grand jury is an investigative body. No one has been accused of crime. Investigators (e.g. the grand jury) talk to anyone who claims to be a witness. Therefore, there is no need to have an adversarial defense. The object of the grand jury is to determine if a crime has occurred and if a crime has occurred who should be accused. A grand jury’s purpose isn’t to indict people without probable cause as you have so vociferous advocated. A grand jury isn’t just a formality to launch a lynch mob. And the grand jury isn't a criminal jury.

The problem you have is not with the protocols. The problems you have are the facts of the case. The evidence does not support your very biased beliefs. You began with a belief in Officer Wilson’s guild and now you and those like you are trying to construct a basis for those beliefs, and it is difficult to do so. Because all the physical evidence supports Officer Wilson and the accounts of the witnesses (excluding witness #40) who support Officer Wilson’s account. What do you have to support your conclusions? You have the testimony of witnesses who have lied, because their testimony wasn’t consistent with the physical evidence. And those witnesses have changed their accounts of what transpired that night.

No, but you have treated them as if they had to be spoon fed and couldn’t think for themselves. You act as if they are not capable of thinking for themselves. Grand juries conduct investigations. They are not triers of fact.

He also pointed out to the jury that she couldn’t have seen what she claimed to see because of building between her and the place she the event she claimed to have witnessed. Evidence of a witness lying is just as relevant as a witness who is telling the truth. Again, the grand jury investigates, it doesn't try the case.

 

Yes, along with the other witnesses who lied to the FBI (e.g. witness 41 and 42) and testified against Wilson. McCulloch isn’t pressing charges against witness #40 for the same reason he isn’t pressing charges against witness #41 and #42. I answered this one in my last response.

The difference here is that the police and the FBI are not prosecutors. They are law enforcement officers (i.e. police agencies). Of course it isn’t acceptable for anyone to lie in a courtroom. But that isn’t the issue and that has nothing to do with Officer Wilson’s guilt or innocence or if a crime even occurred.
Here is the bottom line, you want to cherry pick through the witnesses ignoring anti-Wilson witnesses and totally ignore the physical evidence. Because you had convicted Officer Wilson even before the investigation had been completed. You can accuse McCulloch all day long and smear him to hell and back, as you have done, but it won’t make your arguments credible. You have no evidence McCulloch did anything wrong, much less illegal. There are good reasons why the state attorney general, the state bar and the US attorneys general are not prosecuting or punishing McCulloch.
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you Bells, the grand jury conducted an investigation. Investigators talk to people who claim to be witnesses. In a criminal court the rules are different, because criminal courts are triers of fact and not investigators. So you assertion that grand jurors should not be allowed to talk to some people who claim to be witnesses is like saying police should not talk to people who claim to be witnesses to a crime.

I think you need to take a long serious look at yourself Bells. I don’t know anyone connected with this case. I don’t know Wilson. I don’t know McCulloch. I have no personal feelings either way. Unlike you, I am not emotionally attached to this case. I didn’t prejudge anyone involved in this shooting. I waited. I waited until the investigation had been completed before drawing any conclusions. And your biggest problem isn’t the prosecutor and it isn’t the witnesses, it is the physical evidence. And that is why you never want to talk about it preferring instead to launch silly accusations and argue over procedure. People lie, the physical evidence doesn’t.

 

In the Zimmerman case, after multiple levels of investigations turned up no good reason to prosecute, he was eventually charge due to public, state governor and FBI pressure. This was highly unusual. In the Ferguson case, similar forces came to bear, but the county prosecutor decided to prosecute, so things never had to be escalated. But I'm sure you recognize that pressure makes these things move.

Murder is not a federal civil rights crime, it is a state crime. The federal civil rights investigation is part of the farce of pressure that was applied by the Obama administration. Again, you can be sure that just as in the Zimmerman case, there will be no federal civil rights prosecution. The investigation will go nowhere because there is nowhere for it to go. Obama isn't stupid: he's doing that for show only.

Did you cross post or something? None of that bears any connection to anything I've said, so I'm not sure if you dreamed it or meant to reply to someone else, but since nothing there is a response to anything I said, there is nothing I can respond to in it.

 

Besides the fact that, as Joe said, the authenticity of these is in doubt (in addition to many other problems), these exist because of Wilson's loss of income from losing his job and additional financial hardship from needing to defend himself against malicious prosecution. Hell, he might someday write a book and profit greatly from this, but it still doesn't change the fact that he lost his job and income. Your spin is bordering on lies.

More false. At worst, you could call the hearing's process uncommon, but it is not unprecidented, particularly for publicly charged cases like this one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ec6ffe-339b-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html

By now, this can clearly be nothing but a lie. You know the prosecutor challenged the credibility of the lying witnesses because I provided the quotes that discuss it.

When so much of what you say is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, Bells, it is sometimes tough to know which is willful ignorance, which is fantasy and which is lies. But either way, I take intellectual honesty more serious: you are failing in your duty to intellectual honesty.

 

You did. You just aren't paying attention to what you are talking about, when you advocate for presenting all the evidence and bringing in witnesses to be evaluated and so forth at a grand jury hearing. That's a trial. You want grand juries to try cases, only without the adversarial stuff and cross-examination and so forth.

Wikipedia can use whatever loose language it wants to, but if you think a crime can be investigated from inside a grand jury's meeting room by a collection of amateurs and untrained citizens then you are seriously out of touch with this planet you claim to be calling from.

And if you think people who lie to cops are committing perjury, you simply don't know what the word means. Look it up.

No, it hasn't. You have never, even once, addressed any of them. You have simply continued to assert that they do not exist.

Then why haven't you, or anyone, managed that easy task?

Start with this one: audio analysis of the recorded ten final gunshots shows they were all fired from within a one meter circle. Shell casing positions show a pattern indicating that they were probably ejected from about the same place - within a meter or two of each other. Wilson testified that he was backpedaling while firing those shots, a total distance of about 7 meters within those few seconds. Explain this seeming contradiction.

Every time the lawyer who put them on the stand knew they were going to perjure themselves, knew that they had, and failed to tell the jury of this, yes. That is illegal for lawyers.

No, he didn't.

He not only failed to reveal his knowledge of witness 40's perjury, but brought her back and presented her a second time as an eyewitness when he knew she was not. He did not establish the unlikelihood of her presence or the interrogator's opinion of her veracity, said nothing about her history of false claims in other cases, and nothing about her involvement in this case for weeks prior to her presenting herself as an eyewitness. All this came out later, in the media, by the efforts of journalists - it's not in the transcript of the hearing.

Meanwhile, as 40 was coddled and brought back for repeat testimony, he went out of his way to cast doubt on the apparently truthful and honest testimony of actual eyewitnesses, by bringing in their criminal records and disparaging their memories, motives, and characters.

The quotes you provide show the prosecutor attacking some actual eyewitnesses who seem to be telling the truth as they saw it, and one "witness" who could not have seen what they claimed but was contradicting Wilson. What they have in common is not that they were lying, but that they were contradicting Wilson's account.

What we do not see is harsh cross-examination of anyone whose testimony agreed with Wilson's - even if they were perjuring themselves.

No, they don't. You are simply and completely wrong about that. They can't. They have no access to the means, the time, or the opportunity. Even more: They are in fact forbidden to investigate the cases before them - the judge specifically tells them they cannot investigate the case.

One of the issues being brought to the attention of the Colorado reviewing judge is the fact that the prosecutors in the Wilson case encouraged the jury to investigate the case and ask questions about whatever they found, in direct contradiction of the judge's specific and standard, legal, instructions. Grand juries do not investigate crimes. They can't.

No, the people objecting to McCulloch's flagrant coddling of the person he was supposed to be building a case against are the people objecting to the impropriety of using a grand jury hearing to try a case. Grand juries cannot do that. They have no access to adversarial opinion and argument, careful cross-examination of testimony, challenged analysis of expert opinion, and so forth. They are completely dependent on one side's lawyer - surely you can see a problem with that?

There is no record of either of those witnesses lying to the grand jury. Their grand jury testimony contradicted Wilson's, is all. That is not the same thing as lying. And their testimony, unlike Wilson's, is easily supported by the forensic evidence. If you are going to bet on who's lying, bet on the guy who can't get his story to match the facts very well.

But plenty of evidence, and easy argument. Starting with this bogus show trial the prosecutor set up instead of a normal grand jury hearing, continuing with the coddled and lengthened perjury of "witness" 40, and the shaky (factually contradicted) testimony of Wilson himself, never being questioned with hostility as the apparently honest and physically more plausible accounts of witnesses 41 and 42 were.

If Wilson were a Mob figure, and the prosecutor got him off like this, you'd figure the fix was in. This circus was far beyond "untoward

 

Oh, well then it should be easy for you to prove. So prove it. You are making stuff up again Ice. I have advocated grand juries should see and have access to all available information so they can complete their investigation and determine if a crime had taken place and if it had, who should be accused, that includes talking to all those who claim to have witnessed an event. But that by no means indicates that I want to replace a criminal jury. Apparently you don’t know what a criminal jury is or a grand jury for that matter Ice. A criminal jury is a trier of fact. The prosecution presents its case against the accused and the accused presents his defense. That doesn’t happen at the grand jury level, because events haven’t been determined to be criminal at that point and no one has been legally accused. Just because yahoos in the street are throwing around misinformation and making accusations, it isn’t a legal criminal accusation. I suggest you read up on the historical basis for grand juries. Criminal accusations originate from the District Attorney or the grand jury. For all your self-proclaimed knowledge of grand juries, you appear to be woefully ignorant of their function and the historical basis for grand juries.

Well you previously referenced Wikipedia and its “loose” language. You cited the link. But if you don’t like the wording of your reference, I don’t think you will like the wording used by The University of Dayton. Because it uses that "loose" word too - "investigation".

“ Many states have "regular" (indicting) grand juries. But a number of states also have grand juries that investigate organized crime, especially organized drug crime. And some states let grand juries investigate any kind of crime--organized or otherwise. A few states follow the old, common law practice and let grand juries initiate their own investigations based on what the grand jurors know about what is going on in their community. At common law, grand juries could bring criminal charges in a special document--which was known as a "presentment"--when they acted on their own. If they returned charges brought to them by a prosecutor, those charges were contained in an indictment. If the grand jury acted without the prosecutor, they brought charges in a presentment. Some states still let grand juries do this. Both the presentment and the indictment have the same legal effect--both initiate a criminal case.” http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq3.htm
When you accuse people who are citing credible references and making statements consistent with those references as being “out of this world”, I think you really need to reconsider who is really out of this world.

I think you need to stop creating straw man arguments, if you want to be taken seriously. I didn’t use the word perjury. I said it was illegal to lie to law enforcement officers, just as it is illegal to give false testimony under oath. While lying under oath has a special term for it, lying is still lying and it is still illegal wither under oath or in a police statement. You are back to your horse hair arguments.

But they do, per the Wiki link you previously provided as a reference and now claim it uses “loose” language and per the University of Dayton Law School link I provided, and I can provide more if need be. Don’t forget to read the part where some grand juries can initiate their own investigations.

Because the above quote you attribute to me is not mine. It is yours. It is your post #57. You are arguing with your own previous posts Ice.
“None of these are easily explained under Wilson's account. They are apparent inconsistencies and seeming contradictions that cannot be cleared up without detailed examination and questioning - such as one obtains via actual trial by jury.”

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/should-brown-prosecutor-be-charged.143543/page-3#post-3261237

I think you are confused or intellectually dishonest or perhaps some combination thereof.

Except you have no credible evidence to support your assertions. The physical evidence has been found by everyone who has examined it, including the grand jury, to be consistent with Officer Wilson’s statements and inconsistent with the statement claims you have and continue to make – including your assertion that Officer Wilson was somehow coddled. Officer Wilson went before the grand jury without the legal counsel to which he was entitled.

Except there is ample evidence of lying on the part of those whose testimony contradicted Officer Wilson’s story and it has been discussed ad nauseum in these threads.

The fact is, this wasn’t a trial as has been reiterated numerous times in this and other treads, much less a show trial. The grand jury inquiry was conducted in secret as are all grand jury investigations, so it is difficult to see how you can construe that to be a “show” trial.
Witnesses 41 and 42 were contradicted by the physical evidence, and they changed their stories over time as the physical evidence was released. That isn’t credible in any sense of the word.

Well it is repeated hyperbolic nonsense like that which has destroyed any credibility you may have once had Ice. Officer Wilson isn’t a mob figure, and the prosecutor didn’t get him off. The evidence got him off the hook.

 

"Harsh" cross-examination? So you are acknowleding then that he did cross-examine all the witnesses. He did challenge their credibility/testimony. Well, great! You should have said that up-front instead of spouting a bunch of now moot lies to preface it!

Challenging the witnesses' credibility/testimony = no possible basis for a charge of subornation of perjury

And by the way, if you actually just misspoke and didn't really mean to reverse your course, my offer to relieve you of your burden of proof still stands. Just tell me which witness and link to me the testimony you read through completely that you verified doesn't contain any cross examination and I'll have a look and consider it my burdern to show that it does.

 

Oh, well, that makes sense, then.

There really isn't much to say to someone who supports the sort of racism behind Florida's SYG law. And as I read through your posts, everything about whether or not one finds your argument valid has to do with whether one also accepts the superstitious paranoia laced through it.

The question was over-stepping its bounds. It was a nice try to change the subject, though.

Well, you did make an argument that the federal government's involvement in a civil rights question is overstepping its boundaries.

We've heard that argument before.

The spirit of Lester Cowens prowls the twenty-first century.

Unlike you, some of us are actually disappointed that such a thing could happen.

 

Hold that thought. The grand jury does not try fact. It can't. So anything that depends on being able to try fact is not within the capabilities of a grand jury. Do you agree?

Do you think the credibility of a witness can be determined without trying fact? That the implications of technical and forensic physical evidence can be determined without trying fact?

Your quote, "the above quote", is an edited version of what I posted in 74 above. In 74 I requoted your quote of my post ->and your response <-, as a pair of sentences together - copied directly from your posting, dealing with your assertion there. Your response part is immediately subsequent, within the quote, clearly attached, not at all confusing or difficult to find. My comment then was clear, and your failure to address it - ever - obvious.

You appear to have edited out your response, and only your response, from what you present as an entire and unedited quote, making it appear as if I were commenting on my own quote rather than your response to it. You then accuse me of mental confusion and dishonesty.

I'm not sure exactly what to make of that. What are you doing?

Continuing with just the one of the several assertions whose supporting evidence you have blown off without thought or explanation: I have posted links to photographs of the shell casing distribution, and links to the professional audio analysis of the gunshot recordings, for you to see. You have had access to Wilson's statements and transcript. My assertion of a conflict between Wilson's statements and these two items of physical evidence is then directly apparent.

You simply assert, without evidence or argument, that this evidence does not exist or is not credible (can't tell which - you alternate) - you never actually show or explain what you think is wrong with it. Do you have some physical reason to think the professional audio analysis of the gunshots is wrong? Do you think the photos of the shell casing distributions were faked to implicate Wilson, or do you see some clear error in obvious argument from the distributions? Do you think the transcript of Wilson's testimony is fraudulent?

All who claim to have witnessed an event. Seriously - every mentally ill or corrupted or pressured nutcase and street whacko with an interest of some kind, not screened by investigators.

All "evidence" that anyone claims they found on the scene, or claims to have relevance. Anything anyone in the world outside that hearing, which they have no access to or expertise in investigating, makes up and wants to palm off on them for any reason - including local political forces, the police, fellow gang members or rival gangs, etc.

The whole thing orchestrated by local politicians with powerful friends involved (DAs, police chiefs, etc, are often elected positions). The witnesses subject to arbitrary examination at the preference and behest of those politicians, the expert witnesses and technical evidence presented without argument or explication under competing points of view, etc.

That's a show trial, joe. But a show trial is still a trial. You are advocating for show trial by grand jury, preliminary to (and restricting access to) criminal trial by jury, as at Ferguson.

Presentation of all evidence and witness testimony, determination of probable guilt based on examination of them, and ruling on that guilt, is obviously a trial of some kind. And what I have seen reiterated numerous times here and elsewhere, is that the grand jury found Wilson not guilty, cleared his name, etc. Those may all be slips of the tongue, but they indicate nevertheless that you and others do regard this grand jury finding as a verdict of not guilty for Wilson. And I agree with you. It was.

Not 41 and 42, to the grand jury. Their testimony to the grand jury is not only consistent with each other's, but also with the forensic evidence. The prosecutor was reduced to bringing in their criminal histories and backgrounds to discredit them, as their testimony was not challenged by the facts.

Meanwhile, the various problems Wilson had getting his story straight to the FBI and others before the grand jury hearing were not introduced at that hearing - his credibility was not attacked in front of the jury on the basis of the inconsistencies between his testimony and his earlier statements, or between his testimony and the physical evidence. As with the other possible and undeniable events of lying by witnesses favoring Wilson, and only them, these glitches were not highlighted or used against him in front of the grand jury. Why that pattern?

 

No, he didn't. He avoided doing that. He did not, for example, establish in front of the jury that witness 40 was fabricating her entire testimony, and was not present at the scene of the crime, as even the most basic of cross-examinations would have established (and did, in the case of other witnesses). She was asked a couple of very gentle questions about dreaming, and where she had parked, and what she saw - and her answers were accepted, and when she began to run into trouble she was allowed to go home and rehab her story, rather than being faced with contradictions and evidence of fabrication in front of the jury, and was then allowed back to present her rehabilitated story to the grand jury as an eyewitness account.

Your burden of proof is much easier than that - I am on record as claiming that none of the witnesses whose testimony fully agreed with Wilson's account, including Wilson, were questioned adversarily or exposed to the jury as lying or lacking credibility. And I am on record as making that claim without having bothered to read through the entire mass of witness testimony. That's a far stronger statement than anyone needs to establish that McCulloch was rigging the proceedings by way of biasing his handling of the witnesses, among the other obvious manipulations. That's low-hanging fruit - if you can't knock that one down you have no hope of defending the impartiality of that grand jury hearing.

So you don't even have to make the (very difficult) argument that McCulloch was being fair and impartial overall, let alone the (impossible) argument that McCulloch was fulfilling his responsibility of presenting as strong a case as he could against Wilson. All you have to do is find one pro-Wilson witness who was exposed in a known falsehood, confronted with known contradictions of physical evidence, or had their known background used against their credibility, in front of the grand jury.

Nobody favoring the prosecutor's agenda was cross-examined, btw - there was nobody present to do that. This was a grand jury hearing - onesided by design.

The definition and legal description and relevant statutes of subornation of perjury have been posted several times now. Willful denial of them is getting strange.

 

There isn't enough not-on-fire content in that post to even provide a foothold for a rational discussion, so I must decline to respond.