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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?