• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The web of lies in Ferguson

Nice Squirrel said:
Horatio Parker said:
Theres a big surprise.

It bothers me that this story claims that McElroy was nowhere near Ferguson that day, but says nothing about how they know that.
Click to expand...
It is a good question, but she suddenly decided to testify four weeks later and her testimony exactly matched Wilson's account as stated in the press. And the reasons for "at the scene" did change dramatically.
Click to expand...

I have little doubt she's full of shit. But if it turns out she was three blocks away when the story said she was nowhere near, that's enough to discredit it.
 
The FBI destroyed her testimony:
PAGE 154: FBI agent flat out tells Witness #40 that her story of exiting Canfield in her car is impossible.

PAGE 175: FBI agents show her pictures of every car that came in and out of Canfield on August 9 and ask her to identify which one is hers. She cannot find it. They then inform her that her car was never seen by anyone or any photos that day.
Click to expand...

Read more at http://wonkette.com/569405/darren-w...is-an-obvious-fraud-ha-ha#wkRj0gcfTurRgPWX.99
 
I think the point is why was she brought up to testify in the first place?

I got my Ferguson news from CNN and BBC. I only posted the Wonkette as I felt they did a better job combing through the testimony.
 
ApostateAbe said:
Yeah, Witness 40 was discredited in front of the grand jury by the prosecutor long before Smoking Gun revealed everything about her. That point apparently didn't stop Gawker, Huffington Post, PoliticsUSA, New York Daily News, National Review Online, and countless blogs from calling her a "star witness" or "key witness." It should be a lesson about where to get your news.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22witness+40%22+%22key+witness%22&tbm=nws
Click to expand...

Definitely not from Hannity since as far as he was concerned Witness 40 was the star witless.
 
bilby said:
It isn't reasonable to report inaccuracies in eyewitness testimony as 'lies'; eyewitness testimony is typically just as confused and contradictory in all court cases. It is well known to be the least reliable form of evidence - and, sadly, is often given totally unwarranted weight by both judges and juries.

I would be shocked if any court case - with or without the racial overtones of this particular matter - failed to provide similar examples of eyewitnesses getting things muddled or wrong, and/or using their prejudices rather than their memories to reconstruct the events they saw.
Click to expand...

Well, if it was a white person that was shot, then we can accept that eyewitness testimony is often conflicting, but because the person killed is black and the killer white, this means that conflicting testimony is evidence that the eyewitnesses were lying, and therefore only the cop's account should be trusted, because the cop has no reason to lie. ;)

Or you can look at the transcripts and see that the cop wasn't even cross-examined. The prosecutor didn't treat him like a suspect at all and pretty much acted like the victim was on trial. The "prosecutor" was acting more like a defense attorney.
 
Underseer said:
Well, if it was a white person that was shot, then we can accept that eyewitness testimony is often conflicting, but because the person killed is black and the killer white, this means that conflicting testimony is evidence that the eyewitnesses were lying, and therefore only the cop's account should be trusted, because the cop has no reason to lie. ;)
Click to expand...
An unarmed white kid (17) was shot and killed by a cop who likewise wasn't indicted. Unlike Brown, he hadn't just robbed a convenience store or attacked the cop who shot him. Yet his death and cop not being indicted didn't result in protests, riots, presidential statements or filled cable news for months.

So spare me the "if it was a white person" because such racialist arguments are way overdone.
 
Derec said:
Underseer said:
Well, if it was a white person that was shot, then we can accept that eyewitness testimony is often conflicting, but because the person killed is black and the killer white, this means that conflicting testimony is evidence that the eyewitnesses were lying, and therefore only the cop's account should be trusted, because the cop has no reason to lie. ;)
Click to expand...
An unarmed white kid (17) was shot and killed by a cop who likewise wasn't indicted. Unlike Brown, he hadn't just robbed a convenience store or attacked the cop who shot him. Yet his death and cop not being indicted didn't result in protests, riots, presidential statements or filled cable news for months.

So spare me the "if it was a white person" because such racialist arguments are way overdone.
Click to expand...

But isn't that telling you something as well?
 
ksen said:
ApostateAbe said:
Yeah, Witness 40 was discredited in front of the grand jury by the prosecutor long before Smoking Gun revealed everything about her. That point apparently didn't stop Gawker, Huffington Post, PoliticsUSA, New York Daily News, National Review Online, and countless blogs from calling her a "star witness" or "key witness." It should be a lesson about where to get your news.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22witness+40%22+%22key+witness%22&tbm=nws
Click to expand...

Definitely not from Hannity since as far as he was concerned Witness 40 was the star witless.
Click to expand...
Then include Hannity in that list.
 
Nice Squirrel said:
I think the point is why was she brought up to testify in the first place?

I got my Ferguson news from CNN and BBC. I only posted the Wonkette as I felt they did a better job combing through the testimony.
Click to expand...
The reported excuse given by the prosecutor was that there was so much international attention on this case that to leave out any potential witnesses would be seen as leaving some stones unturned.
 
ksen said:
Which is a bullshit excuse.
Click to expand...
What do you think the motivation of the prosecutor was, if not that? It was because of this prosecutor that the testimony of this claimed witness was fully discredited in front of the grand jury. There was conclusive evidence presented that her car was nowhere near the scene at the time. Wonkette and company forget to mention that, but Slate didn't forget.
 
ApostateAbe said:
ksen said:
Which is a bullshit excuse.
Click to expand...
What do you think the motivation of the prosecutor was, if not that?
Click to expand...

The motivation was to not get an indictment.

It was because of this prosecutor that the testimony of this claimed witness was fully discredited in front of the grand jury. There was conclusive evidence presented that her car was nowhere near the scene at the time. Wonkette and company forget to mention that, but Slate didn't forget.
Click to expand...

Things like that are supposed to happen at a trial, not a grand jury proceeding.
 
ApostateAbe said:
Nice Squirrel said:
I think the point is why was she brought up to testify in the first place?

I got my Ferguson news from CNN and BBC. I only posted the Wonkette as I felt they did a better job combing through the testimony.
Click to expand...
The reported excuse given by the prosecutor was that there was so much international attention on this case that to leave out any potential witnesses would be seen as leaving some stones unturned.
Click to expand...

That is never a reason to put somebody up as a witness.

It is something that pollutes the whole process.

Like putting a drop of poison in a gallon of milk spoils the whole thing.
 
ksen said:
ApostateAbe said:
What do you think the motivation of the prosecutor was, if not that?
Click to expand...

The motivation was to not get an indictment.

It was because of this prosecutor that the testimony of this claimed witness was fully discredited in front of the grand jury. There was conclusive evidence presented that her car was nowhere near the scene at the time. Wonkette and company forget to mention that, but Slate didn't forget.
Click to expand...

Things like that are supposed to happen at a trial, not a grand jury proceeding.
Click to expand...
So what was the motivation for fully discrediting this same witness in front of the grand jury?
 
What was the motivation of putting up a witness you know wasn't actually a witness of anything?

That's what should be answered.
 
ksen said:
What was the motivation of putting up a witness you know wasn't actually a witness of anything?

That's what should be answered.
Click to expand...
The reported excuse given by the prosecutor was that there was so much international attention on this case that to leave out any potential witnesses would be seen as leaving some stones unturned. This is actually plausible. I am being a broken record, I know. :censored2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom