Perhaps you should read just the last few pages of this very simple thread before you expect anyone to accept your interpretation of the volumes of evidence given to the GJ.
After Wilson bagged the damned weapon himself, after retaining it on his person without supervision for some time. This seems to be OK with the “well fingerprints are unlikely” crowd.
No shit about the fingerprints. Not my point though. There’s a process for collecting and controlling evidence. It was not properly followed. This is a big problem being hand-waved away by folks like, well, youSteophan.
If disposing of this case were Mr. McCulloch’s main interest, he could hardly have failed. All he needed was four grand jurors with sufficient doubt, and “no bill” would have resulted. If eight of the twelve jurors were convinced that a jury trial was needed, their opinions are submerged in the minority view. Of course, if eight of the twelve were convinced that no such action was appropriate, the result would have been the same.
This convenient mechanism also allows apologists for the Ferguson PD to claim that the grand jury has spoken, as if they were a singular entity with one unanimous opinion, and we are not to know otherwise. We are not permitted to know.
Also, I find his insistence on personal control of the proceedings highly suspect. He cannot possibly have failed to realize that his reputation in the community was a problem, a problem he could have erased by recusing himself. Which he adamantly refused to do, opting instead for the transparent ploy of sending his subordinates on his behalf. While reaping the benefit by a public appearance announcing the result.
In the nearly inconceivable event that the result had gone otherwise, he would have only needed to shove his subordinates onstage with a canned statement and pour a big bucket of plausible deniabililty all over himself.
Stinks.
Got a nickel says Mr McCulloch is fielding phone calls encouraging him to seek a wider position in Missouri state politics. The “(D)” after his name is a minor matter, and can be easily dealt with. Got another nickel says it will be.
No, it should not. Cases should only go to trial if there’s a reasonable chance of a prosecution. The grand jury decided there wasn’t such a chance, and based on the summary of the evidence provided elsewhere on this board it’s hard to disagree with them.
If there are conflicting witnesses of equal credibility, and no forensic evidence that points to guilt, what purpose would going to trial serve, when the jury would have to acquit?
How is it a big problem for this case? The only thing that could have change if Brown’s fingerprints were on the gun would be more evidence against Wilson’s guilt, and we already have more than enough evidence to show he’s not guilty.
Absence of fingerprints would prove exactly nothing.
The rest of your post just shows your inability to read for comprehension, so I’m not going to waste further time dealing with it.
Subordinates. Answerable to him. Are you hoping to imply that he made an active effort to remove himself, on the perfectly reasonable ground of being sensitive to the fact that his reputation among the black community was…flawed, shall we say? A worthy goal, in my estimation, better served by recusing himself, and allowing a special prosecutor, one not beholden to him. He adamantly refused such an accommodation.
And that’s relevant to Wilson’s guilt or innocence how, exactly? Unless you have any reason to think procedure was deliberately ignored to obscure or destroy evidence, it’s not relevant to the case.
It may be relevant to future training of the relevant people, but that’s a different subject entirely.
Are you joking, or just stupid? Go back in this thread to the earlier discussion about the standard of evidence needed by a Grand Jury to pass a ‘true bill’. There was plenty of evidence suggesting that a crime may have been committed, and normal procedure for a prosecutor would have been to present only sufficient evidence to indict that ham sandwich. When in the past has any prosecutor – or this prosecutor – allowed hours of self serving testimony from the potential defendant… allowed endless recitations of conflicting eye- and ear-witness testimony… allowed technical evidence and testimony to be related… and all without cross examination, or direction from the prosecutor? If the prosecutor actually believed the case had no merit, he should have put on his big boy britches and said so. Handing it off to the GJ, and then simply throwing every bit of possible evidence at them, like shit against the wall, without actually asking them for an indictment, pretty much guaranteed this result. As I’ve said before.
Prosecutors dislike engaging in fruitless prosecutions because (i) it costs money and (ii) not-guilty findings hurt their track record. But Brown’s body wasn’t even cold, or removed from the street, before it was clear that this was going to be a BIG DEAL. A man was dead, under circumstances that aroused suspicion in the minds of a significant number of the members of the community. Any sophomore with a minor in political science would have advised the utmost in transparency in dealing with this situation. Trials, even trials that some may see as having a foregone conclusion, are public. The community can watch as witnesses are called, give testimony, and are cross examined. Same for other evidence. Advocates on each side strive to put the best possible spin on the proceedings. At the end, a group of citizens deliberate and provide a final judgment. And, if there is a conviction, the defendant has an opportunity to appeal. This is the process that the community expected to be followed.
Contrarily, the deliberations of the GJ are secret. No one from the community watched the proceedings. There was no advocate for “The People”. The only advocate was the defendant himself, advocating (apparently at some length and without serious contradiction by anyone present) for the rightness, or at least the legality, of his own actions. His “acquittal” lacks the gravitas of a jury verdict, but has as final an effect.
Wilson is off the hook for his actions. Whether this is rightly or wrongly will never be determined with rigor because there was no fucking trial!!! Why is anyone surprised that the community, and people outside the community, see this as a miscarriage of justice?
So what you’re saying is that if the prosecutor had publicly declared from the start that there was no grounds for indictment and refused to submit it to a grand jury, you would be completely satisfied with that action?
My satisfaction isn’t the issue. The prosecutor serves his community. It is them he is answerable to. And yes, if he thought there were not sufficient grounds for an indictment, he should have said so, and explained his reasoning – and been prepared to be disbelieved.
Or he could have sought an indictment (remember that ham sandwich) just so the process could play itself out to the (in his mind) inevitable acquittal in *a public trial *where the whole community could watch. Surely, if Wilson’s actions truly were legal and supportable, a public trial with public display of the unbelievable witnesses and the evidence that is so solid as to have convinced so many here, it would convince at least *some *members of the community.
The deliberations of any jury are secret, and the prosecutor was there as an advocate for the People.
Innocent until proven guilty. There’s no need to determine his innocence, as he is fucking innocent. That’s what the statement at the start of this paragraph means. It’s not some meaningless platitude, it’s an observation about the way the justice system treats everyone, and how other people should treat them.
It has been found that there’s no reason to think that Wilson committed a crime, with a much more thorough investigation than is normal. There should be no trial, as the evidence cannot lead to him being found guilty, according to the people tasked with deciding that. If that’s correct, and having read the summary of the evidence it seems to be, had it gone to trial the judge would not have sent it to they jury in any case.
It’s just a shame really the prosecutor didn’t have the balls to do his job properly, and dismiss this case out of hand, on the grounds that no crime was actually committed. Sending it to the Grand Jury seems to have given the charges, at least in your eyes and in the eyes of many others, some sort of false legitimacy.
Considering the disagreement among witness accounts, how on earth can we be certain of this? I can understand doubt, but certainty is pretty incomprehensible to me in this case.
No. It’s absolutely wrong, and immoral, to subject someone to a trial when you don’t believe you can prove their guilt. Not to mention the waste of time and resources that could be used to deal with actual criminals, not people defending themselves. You’re not supposed to be having fucking show trials to placate the fucking masses, that’s a disgusting and utterly discredited idea.
If the community are that concerned about justice, they could perhaps take some time to actually study the evidence. If they can spare that time from burning down their own neighbourhood…