A) Durp derp durp derp durp.
B)Derp derp durp derp derp durp.
From the grand jury proceedings: (see Hannity's favorite witness for Darren Wilson is a self-admitted racist with severe memory loss)
PAGE 98: The witness, for the first time, admits to being bipolar and taking medication for it.
PAGE 99: Witness states that she was diagnosed as being bipolar in 1985.
PAGE 103: Witness now admits getting some of the details of her prior testimony off of the internet.
PAGE 104 : Witness now admits that she did not go to the neighborhood to meet the friend that she previously testified she was going to go meet.
PAGE 115: Prosecutors ask the witness if she could’ve dreamed she was there or if her medication could make her think she was there if she really wasn’t and she could’ve had a psychotic break.
PAGE 129: Witness continues to insist she was on Canfield Drive, but now admits to lying to the FBI about first seeing Darren Wilson pull up next to Mike Brown and Dorian Johnson. She admits she just read that part online.
Do you think grand jury was in any way persuaded by Witness #40? Can you find some fault with the prosecutors questioning of Witness #40?
As I’ve already stated elsewhere, no.
Insofar as the questions the prosecutors asked on the stand? No.
It was still moronic of them to call her as a witness and present her recorded interviews.
Care to answer my questions now?
So - can you explain what you think was the damage done by Witness #40 being presented to the grand jury?
I already did. The prosecutor promised to present all the evidence to the grand jury. That is what he did. You may think it is “moronic” to present all the evidence to the grand jury. I don’t think it is.
One, it wasted the grand jury’s time and burdened them with the task of listening to bogus testimony and then disregarding it. Two, we’re now getting all of these media articles along the lines of “OMG Witness 40 is a crazy lying racist! The system is flawed!” Don’t you think that’s a bad thing? Especially since this whole trial was apparently about public trust in the system?
If you don’t think a reasonable person would conclude that Witness 40 was actually there based on her pre-trial statements, then her testimony is no longer evidence in any meaningful sense of the word and doesn’t need to be presented. That’s my point.
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.
No. Witness 40 is a crazy lying racist - and the system exposed her as such. How is it “flawed” exactly?
From today’s interview: “Early on I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything would be presented to the grand jury,” McCulloch said. He added that he would’ve been criticized no matter his decision.
I think he is right.
How did it unfairly advantage Wilson’s case to show that one of the witnesses whose testimony was in his favor was a lying racist?
If the idea is that the DAs were slanted to favor the defense, why would they present such a slimebag for the defense? That’s like calling David Duke as a character witness.
Regards,
Shodan
It is clearly detrimental to Wilson that one of the witnesses that favored his version was shown to the grand jury to be a lying racist. Which is exactly the reason that, if that witness was not presented to the grand jury, there would have been an outcry about removing a witness that was detrimental to Wilson.
No doubt, but that unfortunate fact does not mean his actions are immune to valid criticism. He ran for the office of prosecutor, he was not drafted. More than “volunteered”, he pressed himself forward as a candidate. Oh, it can be a tough job? Yes. And?
I have little doubt that he, indeed, “decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything would be presented to the grand jury”. I only suggest that stern duty to civic virtue is not necessarily the only possible motive.
Indeed, the very fact of inevitable criticism can be a buffer, and insulator. The observing citizen might well reflexively conclude, with a minimum of coaching, “Well, those guys are just saying that because Al Sharpton told them too.”
IOW McCulloch was right - no matter who he put on the stand or didn’t put on the stand, someone was going to complain about a fix.
Regards,
Shodan
Pretty much counted on it, if my presumptions are correct.
I’m not making the claim that it’s flawed. Read more closely.
Sure. And some of that criticism would be deserved, and some wouldn’t be. I’d rather be criticized for making the right decision than making a dumb one, wouldn’t you?
Who’s making this claim?
Sure - you say the media articles claim it is flawed. They are wrong in this case, and they are coming from people who already think it is flawed, so it is nothing new.
I concur. I think the decision was the right decision.
Oooh, snap! Gotcha with the old switcheroo, stereo! Gotta watch yourself with a sharp cookie like Terr!
Personally, I believe that the people upset with the Grand Jury proceeding would be screaming at the top of their lungs had the prosecutor not put her on the stand. The prosecution would be accused of refusing to call someone who would damage the testimony of the officer by being a racist idiot who lied to support him. There would be cries of a coverup, of refusing to acknowledge that race could be a factor in the case, and of trying to support the officer by refusing to call people who are clearly unbeliveable who support his version.
Just as with the grand jury proceeding itself, the prosecution was going to be blasted no matter what they did.
Missouri rule 4-3.3 is floating around, but I’m not sure how relevant it is to this case.
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.
I would also like to point out that the prosecutor admits he knows several of the witnesses were lying, not just one. Any of the other witnesses could be lying, and we wouldn’t know it, because they would be more credible than #40.
What was the context of that? I know some of my suppliers are lying to me, but proving that to my boss is a different matter all together.