# Ferguson, MO **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 12, 2014, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354 "2014-08-12T04:51:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 187
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3721 "2014-12-20T01:21:58Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Funny how nobody who thought the Grand Jury wasn’t a kangaroo court revived this thread to talk about Witness #40, the star witness for the… prosecution? Defense? I get so confused when it comes to a Grand Jury that was as full of shit as this one was. The star witness was the physical evidence. Witness #40 was a crank and everyone knew it, but the prosecutor put _everything_ on the table to try to stop morons like yourself bitching about how they were suppressing Witness #40 because they had evidence that proved Wilson really was a murderer. > [@regginbrow](#): > > Anyone know if this would be relevant to this situation? A witness called by the lawyer certainly offered material evidence such that the lawyer knew of its falsity. > [@](#): > > the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal The fact that Witness #40 was a crank was disclosed to the tribunal. The jury was presented both with her testimony and sufficient evidence to draw the same conclusion that her testimony shouldn’t be trusted. ---
**Author:** ![regginbrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ba9def/32.png) [@regginbrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/regginbrow)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3722 "2014-12-20T02:15:52Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > The fact that Witness #40 was a crank was disclosed to the tribunal. The jury was presented both with her testimony and sufficient evidence to draw the same conclusion that her testimony shouldn’t be trusted. I figured that would be someone’s response. I think this point is debateable, at best. But, it is moot anyway, as McCulloch admitted more than one person was lying on the stand. [http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/some-witnesses-told-obvious-lies-to-michael-brown-grand-jury/article\_fd6effff-fc82-5df2-a248-cb93587847c7.html](http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/some-witnesses-told-obvious-lies-to-michael-brown-grand-jury/article_fd6effff-fc82-5df2-a248-cb93587847c7.html) > [@](#): > > Certain witnesses who spoke before the grand jury investigating the Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown told obvious lies under oath, St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch said Friday. > > “Clearly some were not telling the truth,” he said during an interview on KTRS 550. He added that he’s not planning to pursue charges against any lying witnesses. Witnesses, plural. Anyway, don’t get me wrong. The fact that McCulloch is so open about this leads me to believe he has some out with regards to this rule. It’s just not clear to me what exactly that would be. Edit: It’s also not clear to me why he would admit in an interview that he knew witnesses were lying before they took the stand. What does he have to gain with this? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3723 "2014-12-20T02:25:04Z")
The only reason Witness #40 was there was to help turn the proceedings into that much more of a Gish Gallop. Which is a deplorable debate strategy but makes for great justice, evidently. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3724 "2014-12-20T15:41:31Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Who’s making this claim? Don’t be stupid. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3725 "2014-12-20T15:49:34Z")
> [@regginbrow](#): > > Anyway, don’t get me wrong. The fact that McCulloch is so open about this leads me to believe he has some out with regards to this rule. It’s just not clear to me what exactly that would be. > > Edit: It’s also not clear to me why he would admit in an interview that he knew witnesses were lying before they took the stand. What does he have to gain with this? So he can charge and convict the lying assholes who weren’t helping the situation at all. ---
**Author:** ![Lucky\_Mike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de053/32.png) [@Lucky\_Mike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucky_Mike)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3726 "2014-12-20T16:00:15Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Her testimony isn’t evidence of anything, positive or negative. She was utterly unreliable, so there was no possible benefit to her testimony. Except for sowing doubt in the mind of the jurors so they cannot reasonably decide one way or another. And if the goal of that exercise was to ensure that Officer Wilson walked, it can be counted as a success. > > Keep in mind, if such was his goal, to highlight the confusion among eyewitnesses and convince the jurors that there was too much doubt to make any fair decision, he only had to convince four of the twelve. His job, assuming that was his goal, was not at all difficult. To be fair, I think he was in a real tough place. There were a lot of witnesses who were making claims supporting the idea that Officer Wilson was completely in the wrong and executed Mr. Brown. However, these witnesses were also thoroughly discredited. But, if he did not present them, he would be resoundingly attacked for not allowing a witness who said Wilson was guilty of committing a crime testify. Once he made the choice to let every unreliable witness against Officer Wilson testify, he also had a duty to allow every witness who said Officer Wilson did the correct thing testify, no matter how crazy they were. He then had a duty to show the grand jury all the evidence countering any witness testimony. I realize the liberation hypothesis of juries is a very plausible assertion about jury mentality, and thus, when overwhelmed, people tend to judge situations based on internal beliefs. But, I also do believe that there are reasonable people in this world and we are all not troglodytes who cannot weigh all the given evidence and reach reasonable conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3727 "2014-12-20T18:08:05Z")
> [@Lucky\_Mike](#): > > Once he made the choice to let every unreliable witness against Officer Wilson testify, he also had a duty to allow every witness who said Officer Wilson did the correct thing testify, no matter how crazy they were. > > He then had a duty to show the grand jury all the evidence countering any witness testimony. He didn’t really have a duty to present witnesses that were favorable to Wilson. He could have presented a completely one-sided case that only sought an indictment. The trouble was, at trial the other evidence would be presented and it would have been clear that at the very least there was reasonable doubt as to Wilson’s guilt. The DAs knew that going in to the grand jury. Therefore they decided to present all the witnesses, on both sides, in order to show that, with a reasonably fair presentation of the case, there wasn’t even probable cause to assume that a crime had been committed. There is no point in indicting someone who is going to walk at trial. It just wastes time and (lots of) money. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Lucky\_Mike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de053/32.png) [@Lucky\_Mike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucky_Mike)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3728 "2014-12-20T18:36:01Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > He didn’t really have a duty to present witnesses that were favorable to Wilson. He could have presented a completely one-sided case that only sought an indictment. > > The trouble was, at trial the other evidence would be presented and it would have been clear that at the very least there was reasonable doubt as to Wilson’s guilt. > > The DAs knew that going in to the grand jury. Therefore they decided to present all the witnesses, on both sides, in order to show that, with a reasonably fair presentation of the case, there wasn’t even probable cause to assume that a crime had been committed. There is no point in indicting someone who is going to walk at trial. It just wastes time and (lots of) money. > > Regards, > Shodan Good point. My use of duty was incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3729 "2014-12-20T18:59:56Z")
> [@Lucky\_Mike](#): > > …Once he made the choice to let every unreliable witness against Officer Wilson testify, he also had a duty to allow every witness who said Officer Wilson did the correct thing testify, no matter how crazy they were. (post shortened) Are there any “witnesses” who are claiming that they were not allowed to testify? And if so, did they give reasons why they believe they weren’t allowed to testify? ---
**Author:** ![Lucky\_Mike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de053/32.png) [@Lucky\_Mike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucky_Mike)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3730 "2014-12-20T19:06:33Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > Are there any “witnesses” who are claiming that they were not allowed to testify? And if so, did they give reasons why they believe they weren’t allowed to testify? Not that I am aware of, do you know if any? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3731 "2014-12-20T19:09:55Z")
I’ll suggest that the fact that there is a _witness #40_ means there were, at least, 39 other witnesses. All were heard. Of course, there were more than 40 but the grand jury had a chance to hear, and decide for themselves, what was possible, what wasn’t possible, and what was horseshit. Did witness 40 sway any jurors, as to whether Wilson should be held for trial? Probably not. IMHO, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Lucky\_Mike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de053/32.png) [@Lucky\_Mike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucky_Mike)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3732 "2014-12-20T19:10:58Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I’ll suggest that the fact that there is a _witness #40_ means there were, at least, 39 other witnesses. All were heard. > > Of course, there were more than 40 but the grand jury had a chance to hear, and decide for themselves, what was possible, what wasn’t possible, and what was horseshit. Did witness 40 sway any jurors, as to whether Wilson should be held for trial? Probably not. IMHO, of course. Well ok then. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3733 "2014-12-20T19:11:00Z")
> [@Lucky\_Mike](#): > > Not that I am aware of, do you know if any? None that I’m aware of. ---
**Author:** ![Lucky\_Mike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de053/32.png) [@Lucky\_Mike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucky_Mike)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3734 "2014-12-20T19:12:28Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > None that I’m aware of. Ok, I agree, as my post stated it appears as if he let pretty much everyone testify and then pointed out the possible flaws and then let the jury decide. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3735 "2015-01-22T16:31:57Z")
As a postscript to this whole sad saga; [The FBI has completed its investigation and is expected to recommend to the Justice Department that no federal charges be filed against Darren Wilson.](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-ferguson-police-officer-darren-wilson-close-to-being-cleared-by-justice-department-in-michael/) ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3736 "2015-01-22T17:21:00Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > As a postscript to this whole sad saga; > > [The FBI has completed its investigation and is expected to recommend to the Justice Department that no federal charges be filed against Darren Wilson.](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-ferguson-police-officer-darren-wilson-close-to-being-cleared-by-justice-department-in-michael/) Like there was ever any doubt. This is a pattern - Holder publicly and loudly sends in the FBI to start a federal investigation, in order to dampen the passions of the protestors and to give them some hope of revenge. Then, a year later, the investigation is quietly closed. Purpose served. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3737 "2015-01-22T17:45:15Z")
I don’t know about that. The other shoe to fall is the Federal investigation of general patterns of behaviour at the police force. I expect this to end with some sort of consent decree and possible ongoing monitoring, which will give the protestors what they want. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3738 "2015-01-22T17:50:04Z")
Holder should have a word with those [fuckwits at the NAACP](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/naacp-seeks-new-grand-jury-in-ferguson-police-shooting/). Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3739 "2015-01-22T17:53:22Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The other shoe to fall is the Federal investigation of general patterns of behaviour at the police force. I expect this to end with some sort of consent decree and possible ongoing monitoring, which will give the protestors what they want. What do they want - [free donuts](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/ferguson-bakery-donations_n_6247708.html)? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354/3740 "2015-01-22T19:37:05Z")
**Shodan** , what in the hell are you talking about? Have you a point that would not be hidden by a hat? Clearly there is sarcasm here, but about what? Or who? Are you sneering at the “community members” mentioned in the article? Does their generosity offend you, somehow? Or is it simply that you refuse to even consider that the protestors had legitimate grievances? Should they simply have shut up and eaten another spoonful of shit because some assholes might have exploited the situation if they protest? Give us a hint, a clue if you have such. What in the _fuck_ are you talking about? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354.md?page=186) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ferguson-mo/695354.md?page=188)