Is it your belief that a petit jury in an actual trial, having been shown the same totality of evidence that the grand jury saw, would have voted unanimously to convict?
It is not my belief, but a fact that we will never know.
Oh, so there was the cross-examination that is the hallmark of our justice system? Oh wait, there wasn’t.
I’ll cut off your sanctimonious bullshit with the fact that there was no “totality.” This was NOT a trial. It was not operated under the same rules of a trial with the same expectation of a trial.
The fact that you feel that it was a trial shows more about how you need your worldview validated than I do.
“Unanimously”? What an interesting point! As you must know by now, if even *four *of the grand jurors voted not to indict, it is presented as the verdict of the grand jury just as though it were unanimous.
And not only do we* not *know, we are not permitted to know.
Correct. So if it was impossible to get nine jurors to indict, how do you imagine that anyone would ever have gotten twelve to convict?
Do you believe that jury secrecy is a bad thing? Yes, or no?
Correct. It was operated under much looser rules, with no exclusion of unlawful evidence, no defense evidence or witnesses, in an environment that by its nature favors the state.
And under those conditions it was still not possible to obtain a true bill.
A trial would have been little more than political theatre and would have done little more than waste the taxpayers’ time and money on a non-issue that should never have been pursued in the first place.
You yourself called a Grand Jury a “rubber stamp.” Why did you do that when this case showed that not to be accurate?
I assume it’s because you meant that it was because the prosecutor held all the cards. You know, the “ham sandwich” thing we hear so much. The thing that showed you didn’t know how Grand Juries worked.
I have no doubt that when someone who held all the cards (who could, for example, in an almost unprecedented move get the accused to testify knowing full well that cross-examination was not permitted in that forum) could either build a really nice house from them on a bridge table, or scatter them across the room if they so chose.
So if the “prosecutor” was in charge of the rules and the defense, then yes, I imagine it might be hard to find a conviction if the prosecutor didn’t want one.
Do you contend that the situation would be the same with an actual trial?
The fact that Steophan and yourself seem to think that this was the exact same thing as a trial is evidence that the Grand Jury indeed did make a proclamation of not guilty, something it is ill-equipped to do since that’s not it’s job.
But a rigged system that you decried a few posts ago is somehow just now? The cognitive dissonance of you and others when shown what a farce this Grand Jury actually was is precious.
No, it wasn’t a trial. No trial was necessary, as the totality of the evidence - and the totality is exactly what was provided - showed that there was no cause for a trial.
Do you really think that every single unsupported claim of a crime should go to trial, or just those where a bunch of arseholes start tearing up their own town in “protest”?
Oh, and the hallmark of your justice system should be “innocent until proven guilty”. Try fucking remembering that, rather than assuming Wilson’s guilt and asking for a show trial. You disgusting hypocrite.
Oh, so there was the cross-examination that is the hallmark of our justice system? Oh wait, there wasn’t.
I’ll cut off your sanctimonious bullshit with the fact that there was no “totality.” This was NOT a trial. It was not operated under the same rules of a trial with the same expectation of a trial.
The fact that you feel that it was a trial shows more about how you need your worldview validated than I do.
There’s no need for a proclamation of “not guilty”. He is not guilty, and remains that way until a trial jury pronounces him guilty. As a point of fact, that cannot currently happen, as there is not evidence that would allow it, and no judge would allow a jury to decide, were this case to go to court and the evidence as shown to the grand jury be presented.
Wilson no more needs to be proclaimed “Not Guilty” of the murder of Brown than you or I do, at least in part because he wasn’t murdered.
Because of the pressure, obviously. But he still didn’t want to prosecute it, for the simple reason that no prosecutor wants to bring a case to trial that he knows, 100%, he will lose.
So McCulloch’s plan worked! Good for him! Lousy for justice, but good for him!
I realize it’s “innocent until proven guilty” but the difference is that a Grand Jury doesn’t prove anything. That’s not it’s point, not what it is designed to do.
A Grand Jury proves nothing. A trial would have.
What has cross examination got to do with anything? There was no crime committed, no indictment possible. Who should have been cross examined? We don’t have to cross examine anyone to consider someone innocent, we presume that. Cross examination is necessary to ensure that no defendant is convicted due to someone lying, there was no chance of that happening here so it’s unnecessary.
That’s correct, it was an investigation to determine whether there should have been a trial. It was a more thorough investigation than is normal, and still no cause for trial was found.
You are an out and out liar. You know full well that neither I nor anyone else thinks it was a trial. No trial was necessary. Wilson is, and remains, innocent, and there is no evidence that shows a trial is needed.
Then he should have not gone to the Grand Jury. The sham that was the Grand Jury made people a lot more suspicious than no Grand Jury.
A “no bill” by a Grand Jury proves that there is no probable cause to go to trial. Yes, that is what it is designed to do.
As I said, there was too much pressure for that. But not enough pressure, thankfully, on the Grand Jury to indict.
Nothing needs to be proved. He is innocent, that is not a fact up for debate at this point, and won’t be unless he goes to trial. However, it has been determined that the evidence that exists is not sufficient to warrant a trial. Therefore, he is, and remains, innocent. Just as you do, I do, or anyone else for whom there is insufficient evidence to prove that they murdered Brown.
Why do you want a trial? It’s not for justice, as it’s not just to take people to trial when there’s no evidence that can prove them guilty - that’s at minimum a breach of legal ethics, and in some cases actually illegal.
Cross-examination is everything. For example, discrepancies in his unmolested statement could have been addressed.
Do you really not understand how important cross-examination is? It’s so important that many times even in high profile cases a defendant will not be put on the stand at all.
Of course that’s a real trial where a real prosecutor might actually cross-examine and ask hard questions.
If you really don’t understand why that’s pretty important, there’s nothing more to say.
Correct, but unfortunately arseholes like you, and the cunts burning their own town down in “protest” will only accept a show trial that finds him guilty in defiance of the evidence.
You’ve already refused to accept innocent until proven guilty, I don’t for a second believe that you would accept a “not guilty” verdict based on exactly the same evidence. There is literally no way that evidence that doesn’t reach a probable cause standard at the grand jury could magically reach the standard of beyond reasonable doubt just by some cross-examination, despite your apparent belief in it’s supernatural powers of revelation.
You do realise that a grand jury has greater powers to question the witnesses than a lawyer in a trial court, right? That they saw more evidence than a trial jury would?
I want justice!
And by justice I mean vengeance. Because I don’t care what reality is, just what fits my opinion.