I’m still working through the grand jury transcripts, but not really, just eyewitness testimony. Given the nature of the differences between the witnesses and Wilson’s own account, I can’t think of any physical evidence that would contradict his testimony.
There’s quite a few eyewitnesses who say that Mike Brown was surrendering whose testimony also isn’t contradicted by the physical evidence, though.
Didn’t the prosecutor say that Officer Wilson’s testimony wasn’t that important when looking at whether or not to indict, since obviously it would be biased testimony in his own favor, and that they only looked at it with how it related to the factual evidence of the case?
All of these people going on and on over his testimony don’t seem to get that it wasn’t that important in the grand scheme of him avoiding a trial. It was the physical evidence and the testimony of MANY CREDIBLE WITNESSES that led to him avoiding charges.
No. Is there ever a case where you would consider a shooting by a police officer justified? Do think the evidence suggests Brown was a young man of great character? How about step-father?
This is a decent write up, but there is a shit-ton of evidence that was entered into the grand jury.
Since McCulloch stated quite plainly that the GJ was going to be presented all evidence in the case - maybe you can point out some omissions?
Also my response was to elucidator’s remarks accusing McCulloch of “shepherding the grand jury”:
"Well, it does make an interesting narrative, one that apparently fascinated the prosecutor. He simply couldn’t shut up until he had made mention of every single one.
What value does he see in that, I have to wonder. Debunked evidence is of no value, what is to be gained by bringing it up? Other than to shepherd the grand jury into thinking that all witnesses are bogus, to set the stage for a sympathetic portrayal of a persecuted cop, surrounded by lying…people."
Bolding mine.
That word MIGHT is a huge disclaimer. In a hostile situation either it is, or it isn’t. To Wilson’s mind Brown was not surrendering.
Fair enough. I thought you were going somewhere else. The physical evidence doesn’t contradict the testimony of Wilson, however some of the evidence doesn’t necessarily contradict what you’re surmising here, either.
Why? Because I suspect that it was a tactical maneuver. Debunked evidence is obviously of no value, so why bring up every single example?
Because it establishes a narrative of false accusations and unreliable witnesses. Such that if one of the witnesses was reliable and telling the truth, it is more likely that the witness will be disregarded. So, omission would not be necessary, the jury would be inclined to regard the “good” witness as just another “bad” witness.
Considering the autopsy reports proved that to be false, I think your point is moot.
Lots of anti-Wilson people cling tenaciously to what you call “debunked evidence”. It was important to actually debunk it. If it was not presented, you’d be the first crying about selective presentation of evidence and hiding contrarian witnesses.
Why? A “good” witness’s testimony is not “false” or “unreliable” - why would it be disregarded? I mean, obviously the jury found some witnesses’ testimony reliable.
Actually, on a general level, there’s been a lot of public discussion lately about eyewitness testimony and its unreliablility.
There’s less work in torches and more money in tinderboxes.
Regards,
Shodan
::blinks::
And if he doesn’t present all the witnesses, then your post says:
Notice how he carefully excluded certain witnesses, the ones he says had “unreliable” testimony. I suspect “unreliable” is a synonym for “damaging.”
elucidator’s ideal grand jury:
Members of the grand jury, this is Officer Darren Wilson. He killed an unarmed black person.
The bailiff may fire when ready.
It may be a personal failing, but I enjoy many “Darwin Award Winner” stories.
When you’ve already assaulted the cop, told the cop “you’re too big a pussy to actually shoot me”, then actually been shot by the cop, and then continue to advance upon him after he has yelled at you to “Stop!” repeatedly (I think this is pretty well established), well…it’s not that I find much entertainment value in this story, but…
Of all of Wilson’s testimony, the “you’re too big a pussy…” might be the least believable part, at least to me.
“When you’ve already assaulted the cop, told the cop ‘you’re too big a pussy to actually shoot me’, …”
First, it’s best to not declare this as though it were a recorded statement. Second, if accurate, one wonders whether Wilson decided he needed to prove he was man enough to shoot at someone who’d scuffled with him (later described as punching, but if a 6’6" almost 300-pound man punched you, you’d in fact have injuries, whereas Wilson didn’t (I cannot call that right-cheek redness so much as a contusion).
I find it entirely plausible that Wilson has one or more false memories that he must believe are true to remain sane and explain/rationalize what occurred and his assertion that he *could not have done **anything *differently (which is of course nonsense). People at the heart of a traumatic event – and killing someone, albeit someone you refer to as behaving in a “supernatural” way … as a “demon” and “it” – routinely have false memories, which is an entirely separate issue from regular human memory issues not being reliable/like a recording.[1] (If victim memory was rock-solid reliable, there wouldn’t be so many exonerations in those cases where DNA has been retained or obtained. Victims have been “100% certain” of their attacker only to find out … not their attacker. Some people find a way to admit their mistake and others (being human) cannot. We all know the folks whose egos can’t allow them to even admit the tiniest mistake; imagine what you’d be up against when it comes to a literally life and death situation.)
[1] Never mind how often we’ve all said over our lifetimes “I could’ve sworn” and indeed we COULD have sworn to X that wasn’t accurate, there are any number of parents who’ve left their babies to die in hot cars whose minds created false memories to protect them from the devastation of what in fact happened. Had their babies disappeared and fate unknown, they’d be in a position to leave the false memory intact.
Forgive my frustration here, but since I just went over this point, you obviously ignored it. Let me get your attention: You stupid fuck! The autopsy report CANNOT speak to whether he was shot at, except to illustrate when he was actually hit.
Do you understand?
Where physical evidence was not collected, it is not possible to contradict that testimony. For example, apparently no effort was made to gather fingerprint evidence from the gun. Apparently, Wilson washed blood evidence from himself. A number of other oddities certainly are eyebrow raising.
That’s correct. Fortunately, we have recordings of when the groupings of shots were fired, and can match those with the autopsy. There was no time for him to turn round during the bursts of fire.
Do you honestly not think the grand jury went over this? If there’d been any evidence he shot him in the back, he’d be on trial for murder now, and if there was evidence he tried and failed to do so, probably for attempted murder.
Wilson did absolutely nothing wrong. He did what everyone has the right to do, what he was trained to do.
I can certainly understand why someone might believe that there’s not enough evidence to conclude with confidence that Wilson committed an unlawful shooting, but I’m having trouble understanding how anyone can be absolutely certain that Wilson didn’t do anything wrong and was absolutely 100% correct with every single thing he did.
The British TV show QI recently made this point. Apparently people fall down because they’ve seen people on TV fall down after being shot. If they don’t know they’ve been shot, which is common, they remain on their feet.