The web of lies in Ferguson

[ApostateAbe]

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.

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.

You have your own special theory of empiricism or whatever.

 

[ksen]

What was the motivation of putting up a witness you know wasn't actually a witness of anything?

That's what should be answered.

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:

No, it's not actually plausible.

 

[ApostateAbe]

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:

No, it's not actually plausible.

Why would it not be plausible? Because it is not plausible that the prosecutor did not anticipate that there would be a lot of biased commentators who selectively report the facts for his maximum embarrassment?

 

[ksen]

It's not plausible because grand juries are for getting indictments not for airing every single piece of evidence and listening to every witness. That's what a trial is for.

This prosecutor had one endgame in mind: no indictment. He did what he had to do to not get one.

 

[ApostateAbe]

It's not plausible because grand juries are for getting indictments not for airing every single piece of evidence and listening to every witness. That's what a trial is for.

This prosecutor had one endgame in mind: no indictment. He did what he had to do to not get one.

You have a moral/legal objection to what he seemingly did. There is a difference between that and objecting to the plausibility of the proposed motivation. Bringing in Witness 40 to testify and disgracing her plainly did not help his proposed motivation of getting no indictment. It would be exactly the wrong thing to do, assuming the motivation you claim.

 

[ksen]

Obviously not since he got his no indictment.

 

[laughing dog]

What was the motivation of putting up a witness you know wasn't actually a witness of anything?

That's what should be answered.

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've invented your own special theory of logic to prove your own special theory of empiricism.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Obviously not since he got his no indictment.

Obviously not regardless of indictment or no indictment. You don't bring in a witness for your cause and tell everyone she has no credibility! On what planet would anyone do that?

 

[ksen]

Abe, she had nothing to do with the case . . . at all. Why bring her in? It couldn't have been in order to present all the evidence because she had no evidence to present. She was a random person on the street.

I think he brought her in as a way to taint all the eyewitness accounts.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Abe, she had nothing to do with the case . . . at all. Why bring her in? It couldn't have been in order to present all the evidence because she had no evidence to present. She was a random person on the street.

I think he brought her in as a way to taint all the eyewitness accounts.

As a way to taint the other eyewitness accounts? That would be a helpful perspective. It is provably a case that has attracted all the deranged liars in the city. He had a choice between having only a few credible witnesses or dumping them all in front of the grand jury and evaluating each one of them. He chose the latter option.

 

[ZiprHead]

I guess a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. No so much with other pork products.

 

[Underseer]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...ded-to-destroy-the-case-against-Darren-Wilson

Isn't it funny how ApostateAbe complains about inconsistent eyewitness testimony?

If he was really concerned about flimsy and unreliable eyewitness testimony, his position would be the reverse of what it is.

 

[ApostateAbe]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...ded-to-destroy-the-case-against-Darren-Wilson

Isn't it funny how ApostateAbe complains about inconsistent eyewitness testimony?

If he was really concerned about flimsy and unreliable eyewitness testimony, his position would be the reverse of what it is.

Witness 40 has been the topic of discussion in the recent posts, and it is a lesson on why you should not depend on Daily Kos for news. Sandy McElroy and Prosecutor Bob McCulloch colluded to destroy the case against Darren Wilson? Holy shit, really??

Answer:

NO!

 

[ApostateAbe]

That Daily Kos post is actually very impressive. Each individual claim it makes is a confirmed fact. For example, it does NOT make the mistake of calling Sandy McElroy a "star witness" or "key witness," as other writers have done. But, the article still succeeds in completely misleading the readers through the careful selection of facts. If the author reported that Sandy McElroy was completely discredited in front of the grand jury, it would completely reverse the thesis stated in the headline, but the author leaves it out. Brilliant and scary.

 

[Arctish]

Ferguson prosecutor: Some witnesses lied, including woman who didn’t see shooting

A woman who swore she saw teenager Michael Brown pummel Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson and charge him “like a football player,” was lying about being at the scene of the controversial police shooting, St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch said Friday.

“I’m sure she was nowhere near the place,” McCulloch said during a St. Louis radio interview. “She recounted the statement that was right out of the newspaper.”

While investigators doubted her story, McCulloch said the woman was allowed to testify because “early on, I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything would be presented to the grand jury.” <link>

Rep. Karla May isn't buying McCulloch's story about wanting to hear from all the "witnesses" out of a sense of fairness. She wants an investigation into possible prosecutorial misconduct.

Lawmaker wants investigation of St. Louis prosecutor

"Many St. Louis-area residents believe — and there is at least some evidence to suggest — that Mr. McCulloch manipulated the grand jury process from the beginning to ensure that Officer Wilson would not be indicted," May wrote.

She said in an interview that McCulloch should have removed himself from the case at the outset.

"I don't believe he followed proper procedures when he presented evidence to the grand jury," May said. "To me, he was working for the defendant in this case and not the victim." <link>

 

[ZiprHead]

There seems to be a lot of focus on the few witnesses who've lied or mis-remembered some details, What about the many more whose recollections have not been questioned?

 

[ApostateAbe]

There seems to be a lot of focus on the few witnesses who've lied or mis-remembered some details, What about the many more whose recollections have not been questioned?

Every recollection is questioned. But the accounts that agreed with forensic evidence took precedence.

 

[thebeave]

Michael Shermer, of Skeptic magazine fame did a pretty decent write up this week on the Ferguson witness accounts, and how our memories often are fabricated. Worth a read:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/14-12-17/

These historical examples should be kept in mind when assessing current events, most notably what really happened between 12:01pm and 12:03pm on August 9, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri when police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed teenager Michael Brown during a physical altercation after Wilson confronted Brown who had shoplifted cigarillos from a local market. When a grand jury failed to indict Wilson for murder, moral outrage trumped rational analysis and rioting ensued. When the documents reviewed by the grand jury were made public, however, it became clear why an indictment was dropped. The eyewitness accounts that would have indicated criminal wrong-doing on the part of the police officer were inconsistent, unreliable, provably wrong, changed over time, and even fabricated.

One woman, for example, reported that there was a second police officer in the passenger seat next to Wilson, a white “middle age or young” man in uniform. Wilson was alone. A number of bystanders said Wilson shot Brown in the back, including Brown’s friend standing next to him, Dorian Johnson. Johnson’s initial story that Wilson’s shot “struck my friend in the back” contradicted his grand jury testimony that the shot caused Brown’s body to “do like a jerking movement, not to where it looked like he got hit in his back, but I knew, it maybe could have grazed him.”

 

[RavenSky]

There seems to be a lot of focus on the few witnesses who've lied or mis-remembered some details, What about the many more whose recollections have not been questioned?

Every recollection is questioned. But the accounts that agreed with forensic evidence took precedence.

Like that of the racist woman who wasn't even there?

 

[ZiprHead]

Michael Shermer, of Skeptic magazine fame did a pretty decent write up this week on the Ferguson witness accounts, and how our memories often are fabricated. Worth a read:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/14-12-17/

These historical examples should be kept in mind when assessing current events, most notably what really happened between 12:01pm and 12:03pm on August 9, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri when police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed teenager Michael Brown during a physical altercation after Wilson confronted Brown who had shoplifted cigarillos from a local market. When a grand jury failed to indict Wilson for murder, moral outrage trumped rational analysis and rioting ensued. When the documents reviewed by the grand jury were made public, however, it became clear why an indictment was dropped. The eyewitness accounts that would have indicated criminal wrong-doing on the part of the police officer were inconsistent, unreliable, provably wrong, changed over time, and even fabricated.

One woman, for example, reported that there was a second police officer in the passenger seat next to Wilson, a white “middle age or young” man in uniform. Wilson was alone. A number of bystanders said Wilson shot Brown in the back, including Brown’s friend standing next to him, Dorian Johnson. Johnson’s initial story that Wilson’s shot “struck my friend in the back” contradicted his grand jury testimony that the shot caused Brown’s body to “do like a jerking movement, not to where it looked like he got hit in his back, but I knew, it maybe could have grazed him.”

The Skeptic article is referring to one of the people who could be discounted. There were, however, 16 witnesses (iirc) who claimed Brown was surrendering. If we discount four, what of the other twelve?