Grand Jury announcement today!

[Stranger]

Nope, never lived outside the US but I have been to 5 continents and 15+ countries. I see an extremely progressive tilt to most US media outlets but not quite sure I see a racism towards minorities but maybe an attempt to create racial tension in reporting incidents. The Trayvon Martin case a prime example of that. Could you give a couple of examples of inherent racism in US media?

- most Rap Music (except for Tupac, who rapped about serious social problems) which depict african american's as money-lovin gangstas
- US TV crime shows who regularly depict african americans as street savvy criminals being shaken down by a white detectives who don't take no crap
- US News media which depicts african american as uneducated people who can't be trusted to vote correctly

The bigotry is so ingrained in every aspect of media that it amazes me on cannot see it. To me, this really shows the level of indoctrination of non-african-american populations in the USA, as the media characterization is so pervasive that one can't even see it.

I always saw it, but after living overseas for 10years and returning it slapped me in the face much harder. I've been appalled ever since.

 

[Stranger]

Dude, there is no bigger fake and agenda driven reporter than Chris Hayes. He doesn't even point out that the forensics prove he is lying as if we didn't already know that as being probable.

Johnson lied. He stated things that were untrue and also withheld testimony that supported Wilson.

I completely agree with you that the media is attempting to fan the flames of hatered and contempt here. You'll find no argument from me on that one at all. Social destabilization is clearly the goal.

What I am unable to discern is the discrepancies in evidence from testimony and eye witness accounts. There's a piece of the puzzle that's missing for me.

 

[RamzFanz]

I completely agree with you that the media is attempting to fan the flames of hatered and contempt here. You'll find no argument from me on that one at all. Social destabilization is clearly the goal.

What I am unable to discern is the discrepancies in evidence from testimony and eye witness accounts. There's a piece of the puzzle that's missing for me.

Which account? Johnsons?

Johnson stated that Wilson reached through his window, choked Brown, and attempted to pull him into his car. Think that through. Reached out in a sitting position and choked a 6'4" 290 LB man while attempted to pull him up into an SUV, through a window, onto his lap. That's where johnson lost all credibility with me. However, now it appears he's been coached because he's no longer claiming Brown was choked and it's now become a "tug of war" instead of into the car.

Johnson claims Brown didn't slam the door but Brown's palm print was on the door. He said Brown's hands were never in the car but Brown's thumb was shot inside the car. There is Brown's DNA on the gun and blood in the car. If Brown wasn't attacking Wilson, why would he fire shots, hitting Brown, INSIDE his car?!?

Johnson claimed Wilson shot at Brown from behind. That's not supported by the evidence or credible witnesses. He claimed Brown turned with his hands up. That's not supported by the bullet wounds. He claimed mike said don't shoot which he has since retracted. He "forgot" to tell the police and many news interviews that Wilson was yelling for Brown to get down and stop. He said Brown stopped and put his hands up but the blood trail and shell casings show that Brow came at Wilson and Wilson back peddled.

 

[Boffo97]

I completely agree with you that the media is attempting to fan the flames of hatered and contempt here. You'll find no argument from me on that one at all. Social destabilization is clearly the goal.

What I am unable to discern is the discrepancies in evidence from testimony and eye witness accounts. There's a piece of the puzzle that's missing for me.

Many witnesses' testimony (including some African-Americans) did support the evidence and Officer Wilson's account.

The simplest explanation therefore would be that those who did not were mistaken or lying.

 

[Mackeyser]

None of us really know what went on. For sure there are bad cops out there and blatantly idiotic, violent thugs roaming the streets. I do find it hard to believe that the DA had even a remotely prosecutable case but just decided to shelve it and have all hell break loose.

Well, yeah, that's pretty much what happened. As I quoted in the football thread, Justice Scalia in 1992 laid out very clearly the role of the Grand Jury and the presentation of evidence.

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."

I'm quoting from an article on Alternet, but there are several good articles out there on this very topic. The article goes on:

The passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.

McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours and made sure the grand jury was aware of every possible piece of evidence that could exculpate the cop. In his rambling press conference Monday night, McCulloch explained that the refusal to indict resulted from the combination of contradictory eyewitness testimony and other exculpatory evidence. But it was immediately obvious to legal experts that the way the prosecutor presented the evidence virtually guaranteed that there would be no indictment, and therefore no trial. As the cliche goes, a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. But, it should be added, the prosecutor has to want the ham sandwich to be indicted. (emphasis mine)

There was so much wrong with how this went down that books will be written about it. McCulloch should have recused. He didn't. He should have actually presented the charges to the Grand Jury. He didn't. Not in the same manner as every OTHER Grand Jury. Normally a DA will actually present the charges and then essentially make his Prima Facie (or first facts) case as to WHY the Grand Jury should indict. It's the whole point. His office functioned as de facto defense attorneys in the Grand Jury for Officer Wilson, a breach of the duties of his office before the Grand Jury. Other than giving the Grand Jury a list of charges, the Assistant DAs, NOT the DA himself, did NOT make any case for the return of any of the charges. As the Grand Jury was not sequestered, they KNEW they were in on the biggest case in the country and for the DA to not be presenting the case for indictment sent a STRONG signal to them that he didn't expect an indictment. DAs are political animals and you will NEVER see a DA pass up a chance to get an indictment on a high profile case before the Grand Jury because if it goes to trial, he will want to ensure that everything before the Grand Jury is perfect. As an example, if this were going to trial, there's NO WAY Wilson goes before the Grand Jury because the DA would want to tear into his inconsistent testimony on cross examination. Why the different distances? Why was his testimony from that day so different from the subsequent testimony a week later? How does he reconcile the testimony of the other person with Michael Brown who says Officer Wilson actually opened his car door and slammed it into Brown, which also puts everyone and the DNA in the right place, but puts Wilson on the aggressive and totally contradicts his account? NO ONE has put Wilson on a stand and cross-examined him. EVER. And now, it can't happen. Which...was pretty much the plan all along. It had to be. There are just simply too many affirmative actions (no pun intended) taken to come to any other conclusion.

The shocking part isn't that Officer Wilson wasn't indicted. It was that it went to the Grand Jury at all and that they went to all the trouble of trying to cover for Officer Wilson when the outcome was predetermined. There is NO WAY after the release of that information that a discerning person can say that the DA sought justice or even the unvarnished truth.

The DAs office's intent was to ensure that Officer Brown was NOT indicted. And they ensured that successfully.

I totally agree that any looting and burning is sad, unnecessary, counterproductive and wrong. What I appreciated were folks in the crowd wearing black hoodies with "Peacekeeper" on it in white letters and phone cameras and rather than videoing the cops, they were taking footage of the people. And whenever a crowd gathered, you'd see folks get there and try to start talking to people. Didn't always work, but there were and are a lot of people who want to see this turn into positive change. MOST (easily 99+% of the people there throughout the months of protests) are looking to see positive changes... like community policing, body cams on police and a host of other things to make their community a better place.

One thing DA McCulloch DID say that is very true. If we want different outcomes, change the laws. Don't burn things down. Now, with gerrymandering and all the political shenanigans all over the place, that's a tough row to hoe, but if we as a people can deal with all we've changed from only white landowners participating in the political process to where we are today, we can certainly move even farther toward our founding ideals where we state that all men are created equal (and thus are treated equally under the law).

 

[RamzFanz]

@Mackeyser

"McCulloch should have recused. "

Why?

 

[RamzFanz]

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."

That's correct. It is up to the prosecutor to present the evidence and the grand jury may ask questions and ask for additional information including launching their own investigations.

McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours and made sure the grand jury was aware of every possible piece of evidence that could exculpate the cop. In his rambling press conference Monday night, McCulloch explained that the refusal to indict resulted from the combination of contradictory eyewitness testimony and other exculpatory evidence. But it was immediately obvious to legal experts that the way the prosecutor presented the evidence virtually guaranteed that there would be no indictment, and therefore no trial. As the cliche goes, a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. But, it should be added, the prosecutor has to want the ham sandwich to be indicted. (emphasis mine)

I don't disagree that the prosecutor didn't want an indictment. He presented ALL of the evidence and witnesses because he knew they wouldn't indict. Not because it was rigged to be in Wilson's favor but because there was no evidence of a crime. It wasn't that the witness testimony was contradictory, it was that the witnesses that supported Wilson's account were credible and the others were not. You quote Johnson as if anything he said could be believed when it couldn't. He lied. There is no doubt he lied.

There was so much wrong with how this went down that books will be written about it. McCulloch should have recused. He didn't. He should have actually presented the charges to the Grand Jury. He didn't. Not in the same manner as every OTHER Grand Jury. Normally a DA will actually present the charges and then essentially make his Prima Facie (or first facts) case as to WHY the Grand Jury should indict. It's the whole point. His office functioned as de facto defense attorneys in the Grand Jury for Officer Wilson, a breach of the duties of his office before the Grand Jury. Other than giving the Grand Jury a list of charges, the Assistant DAs, NOT the DA himself, did NOT make any case for the return of any of the charges. As the Grand Jury was not sequestered, they KNEW they were in on the biggest case in the country and for the DA to not be presenting the case for indictment sent a STRONG signal to them that he didn't expect an indictment. DAs are political animals and you will NEVER see a DA pass up a chance to get an indictment on a high profile case before the Grand Jury because if it goes to trial, he will want to ensure that everything before the Grand Jury is perfect. As an example, if this were going to trial, there's NO WAY Wilson goes before the Grand Jury because the DA would want to tear into his inconsistent testimony on cross examination. Why the different distances? Why was his testimony from that day so different from the subsequent testimony a week later? How does he reconcile the testimony of the other person with Michael Brown who says Officer Wilson actually opened his car door and slammed it into Brown, which also puts everyone and the DNA in the right place, but puts Wilson on the aggressive and totally contradicts his account? NO ONE has put Wilson on a stand and cross-examined him. EVER. And now, it can't happen. Which...was pretty much the plan all along. It had to be. There are just simply too many affirmative actions (no pun intended) taken to come to any other conclusion.

The affirmative actions taken were to ensure the grand jury had all of the facts so they wouldn't indict an innocent person. I'm sure it WAS political. He passed the buck to the grand jury so he wouldn't be falsely accused of letting a killer go but he didn't want an indictment they couldn't win would be my guess. You are saying it is wrong to show the jury the evidence and he should hide evidence to get an indictment on an innocent man?

The shocking part isn't that Officer Wilson wasn't indicted. It was that it went to the Grand Jury at all and that they went to all the trouble of trying to cover for Officer Wilson when the outcome was predetermined. There is NO WAY after the release of that information that a discerning person can say that the DA sought justice or even the unvarnished truth.

He presented ALL of the evidence but he was covering? That makes no sense.

The DAs office's intent was to ensure that Officer Brown was NOT indicted. And they ensured that successfully.

Yes, probably true, but they did it by allowing the facts to come out. That's not immoral or even improper by law. If anything, sending it to the grand jury knowing he was innocent was the immoral act.

You claim Wilson made contradictory remarks but didn't present any. I would like to see them if you have them.

 

[Stranger]

McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours and made sure the grand jury was aware of every possible piece of evidence that could exculpate the cop. In his rambling press conference Monday night, McCulloch explained that the refusal to indict resulted from the combination of contradictory eyewitness testimony and other exculpatory evidence. But it was immediately obvious to legal experts that the way the prosecutor presented the evidence virtually guaranteed that there would be no indictment, and therefore no trial. As the cliche goes, a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. But, it should be added, the prosecutor has to want the ham sandwich to be indicted. (emphasis mine)

As the Grand Jury was not sequestered, they KNEW they were in on the biggest case in the country and for the DA to not be presenting the case for indictment sent a STRONG signal to them that he didn't expect an indictment

DAs are political animals and you will NEVER see a DA pass up a chance to get an indictment on a high profile case before the Grand Jury because if it goes to trial, he will want to ensure that everything before the Grand Jury is perfect. As an example, if this were going to trial, there's NO WAY Wilson goes before the Grand Jury because the DA would want to tear into his inconsistent testimony on cross examination. Why the different distances? Why was his testimony from that day so different from the subsequent testimony a week later? How does he reconcile the testimony of the other person with Michael Brown who says Officer Wilson actually opened his car door and slammed it into Brown, which also puts everyone and the DNA in the right place, but puts Wilson on the aggressive and totally contradicts his account? NO ONE has put Wilson on a stand and cross-examined him. EVER. And now, it can't happen. Which...was pretty much the plan all along. It had to be. There are just simply too many affirmative actions (no pun intended) taken to come to any other conclusion.

The DAs office's intent was to ensure that Officer Brown was NOT indicted. And they ensured that successfully

 

[Mackeyser]

@RamzFanz

DA McCulloch was involved in a similar case where he specifically sided with police and did not act in an impartial manner. That case was already a big deal in the community and creates distrust in the community (I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head, but it was cited again and again by folks on the street)

In such a high profile case, the community really needed Justice to be served. What it got was a DA who served quite literally as the defense counsel for the Officer before the Grand Jury.

Even very conservative prosecutors once they saw the release of information have been extremely critical of DA McCulloch for a number of reasons.

1) He should have recused. Even if there wasn't a direct conflict of interest, there was a broader conflict of interest and in the interest of justice, it would have been better to appoint an independent counsel. Such a move would have removed any doubts about improprieties and as long as the independent counsel were properly vetted, the outcome would have much better standing within the community.

2) He should have properly used the Grand Jury. Even if he wasn't going to recuse, there just is NO EXCUSE for what DA McCulloch had his staff do before the Grand Jury. Firstly, he didn't present himself. Secondly, he had them present ONLY the evidence, not the CASE for indictment which is exactly their role before the Grand Jury. Thirdly, they went out of their way to include exculpatory evidence in their presentation. Such a presentation ensured a return of No True bills. Ensured.

3) He announced late at night. There is no excuse for that. The jury came back in the early afternoon and people were notified including the Governor and other officials. There was no reason to announce it so late. A better plan would have been to announce the finding early the next morning. It would have given the State of MO all night to set up as well as given businesses at least that night to prepare. Car dealerships could have taken that night to drive cars off their lots, for example. It also would have allowed city officials to engage in traffic control, community policing... umpteen things to MANAGE the situation. I mean...he IS the District Attorney, after all.

Based on how poorly and unprofessionally this was handled, it's clear that DA McCulloch SHOULD have recused.

The Brown family will not get justice and Officer Wilson will never get his day in court (unless the Feds step i with a Civil Rights suit which may happen), so he'll always be a murderer in some folks eyes. Both are important and neither happened because DA McCulloch couldn't put his community ahead of his bias. And we have PROOF of that in how he chose NOT to present the charges to the Grand Jury (they only presented the evidence AND included expulpatory evidence on top of that), an almost unprecedented move.

 

[Boffo97]

The Brown family will not get justice and Officer Wilson will never get his day in court (unless the Feds step i with a Civil Rights suit which may happen), so he'll always be a murderer in some folks eyes. Both are important and neither happened because DA McCulloch couldn't put his community ahead of his bias. And we have PROOF of that in how he chose NOT to present the charges to the Grand Jury (they only presented the evidence AND included expulpatory evidence on top of that), an almost unprecedented move.

Even if there was a trial, all it would do is make all the nonsense start up again once the verdict was guilty.

And waste millions of dollars in taxes.

 

[Mackeyser]

@RamzFanz

DA McCulloch misused the Grand Jury. Plain and simple.

As Justice Scalia points out, the Grand Jury is NOT the venue for exculpatory evidence. Moreover, Officer Wilson's testimony was RIDDLED with inconsistencies that should have been subject to cross-examination at trial.

The purpose of the Grand Jury is NOT to convict. It's to INDICT. And there was enough to indict. There just was.

Now... especially because Officer Wilson is a Police Officer, because the eyewitness testimony was inconclusive and because the forensics were also inconclusive and there was no video evidence, it's pretty unlikely Officer Wilson would be convicted. At least of a higher crime like murder. Depending on what happened at trial, a REALLY good prosecutor might get him on a lower charge of a lesser manslaughter if he were able to establish better about the distances because Officer Wilson's testimony didn't match the forensic evidence...EITHER. That part gets glossed over by his defenders.

I'm not arguing that Officer Wilson is guilty...or innocent.

I'm not arguing that Michael Brown is guilty of anything since he's not on trial (and he shouldn't be PUT on trial in some BS equivocation nonsense).

I'm arguing that the Grand Jury process was subverted and, thus that justice was denied.

You don't seem to argue that fact, but seem to rationalize it.

I wholeheartedly, to the marrow of my bones, respectfully disagree. The law is the law and we should follow it for all.

Officer Wilson was denied his day in court by this and thus was denied justice as well. Not to the degree that the Brown family was, obviously, as they lost a son. My point is that in subverting the Grand Jury process for a political outcome, justice was DENIED to all involved.

And anyone pointing to the Grand Jury process in this case as a vindicatory process simply doesn't understand what happened.

 

[RamzFanz]

@RamzFanz

DA McCulloch was involved in a similar case where he specifically sided with police and did not act in an impartial manner. That case was already a big deal in the community and creates distrust in the community (I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head, but it was cited again and again by folks on the street)

In such a high profile case, the community really needed Justice to be served. What it got was a DA who served quite literally as the defense counsel for the Officer before the Grand Jury.

Even very conservative prosecutors once they saw the release of information have been extremely critical of DA McCulloch for a number of reasons.

1) He should have recused. Even if there wasn't a direct conflict of interest, there was a broader conflict of interest and in the interest of justice, it would have been better to appoint an independent counsel. Such a move would have removed any doubts about improprieties and as long as the independent counsel were properly vetted, the outcome would have much better standing within the community.

2) He should have properly used the Grand Jury. Even if he wasn't going to recuse, there just is NO EXCUSE for what DA McCulloch had his staff do before the Grand Jury. Firstly, he didn't present himself. Secondly, he had them present ONLY the evidence, not the CASE for indictment which is exactly their role before the Grand Jury. Thirdly, they went out of their way to include exculpatory evidence in their presentation. Such a presentation ensured a return of No True bills. Ensured.

3) He announced late at night. There is no excuse for that. The jury came back in the early afternoon and people were notified including the Governor and other officials. There was no reason to announce it so late. A better plan would have been to announce the finding early the next morning. It would have given the State of MO all night to set up as well as given businesses at least that night to prepare. Car dealerships could have taken that night to drive cars off their lots, for example. It also would have allowed city officials to engage in traffic control, community policing... umpteen things to MANAGE the situation. I mean...he IS the District Attorney, after all.

Based on how poorly and unprofessionally this was handled, it's clear that DA McCulloch SHOULD have recused.

The Brown family will not get justice and Officer Wilson will never get his day in court (unless the Feds step i with a Civil Rights suit which may happen), so he'll always be a murderer in some folks eyes. Both are important and neither happened because DA McCulloch couldn't put his community ahead of his bias. And we have PROOF of that in how he chose NOT to present the charges to the Grand Jury (they only presented the evidence AND included expulpatory evidence on top of that), an almost unprecedented move.

Yeah, there's no middle ground here that I see. You claim Brown's family won't get justice when in fact it's Wilson and his family who won't. There is no evidence of a crime of any kind by Wilson yet he has lost his job and will certainly have to move and live in fear. It's ridiculous. Justice, with what we know now, would have been to not indict or present to the grand jury.

A 6'4" 290 LB man robbed a store and attacked an officer putting him in fear of his life. He beat the officer. He went for the officer's gun. He charged at that officer and was shot and stopped, then charged again and was killed. That's what happened according to ALL of the evidence and ALL of the credible testimony. It's there for everyone to see yet they continue to make false statements about what happened.

Those witnesses that had the spotlight for months creating this caos were all found to be lying in one manner or another.

One admitted she WAS NOT EVEN THERE! Johnson just lied his butt off and got caught changing his story.

The charge that the prosecutor didn't want to indict just seems like sour grapes to me. Why won't anyone simply acknowledge that there was no way he would be found guilty because there is ZERO evidence that counters his claims?

 

[RamzFanz]

@RamzFanz

DA McCulloch misused the Grand Jury. Plain and simple.

As Justice Scalia points out, the Grand Jury is NOT the venue for exculpatory evidence. Moreover, Officer Wilson's testimony was RIDDLED with inconsistencies that should have been subject to cross-examination at trial.

The purpose of the Grand Jury is NOT to convict. It's to INDICT. And there was enough to indict. There just was.

Now... especially because Officer Wilson is a Police Officer, because the eyewitness testimony was inconclusive and because the forensics were also inconclusive and there was no video evidence, it's pretty unlikely Officer Wilson would be convicted. At least of a higher crime like murder. Depending on what happened at trial, a REALLY good prosecutor might get him on a lower charge of a lesser manslaughter if he were able to establish better about the distances because Officer Wilson's testimony didn't match the forensic evidence...EITHER. That part gets glossed over by his defenders.

I'm not arguing that Officer Wilson is guilty...or innocent.

I'm not arguing that Michael Brown is guilty of anything since he's not on trial (and he shouldn't be PUT on trial in some BS equivocation nonsense).

I'm arguing that the Grand Jury process was subverted and, thus that justice was denied.

You don't seem to argue that fact, but seem to rationalize it.

I wholeheartedly, to the marrow of my bones, respectfully disagree. The law is the law and we should follow it for all.

Officer Wilson was denied his day in court by this and thus was denied justice as well. Not to the degree that the Brown family was, obviously, as they lost a son. My point is that in subverting the Grand Jury process for a political outcome, justice was DENIED to all involved.

And anyone pointing to the Grand Jury process in this case as a vindicatory process simply doesn't understand what happened.

You've made a lot of statements not supported by any facts. How did Wilson's story not match the forensics?

 

[Mackeyser]

Even if there was a trial, all it would do is make all the nonsense start up again once the verdict was guilty.

And waste millions of dollars in taxes.

So, our system of justice is a waste of money?

Our system is like a sorting system. There are lots of exits from dismissal to settlement to initial/summary judgment to finally trial and verdict and then there's the appeals process.

Just because every claimant doesn't see the end doesn't mean the system is wasteful. Actually, it's GOOD that everyone doesn't see the end. That means the system works. Not every claimant SHOULD see the end.

But, some are sorted out that shouldn't.

And just because we disagree with a verdict doesn't mean the system doesn't work (well, sometimes... like Citizens United...)

And, btw, I personally don't think Officer Wilson would have been found guilty at trial. That was never my purpose in this discussion.

However, I think that the evidence and testimony certainly met the threshold for indictment as do LOTS of other prosecutors who tend to lean conservative (if that helps).

I'm all about the principle of the thing. The Grand Jury process should have been above board. If it lead to an indictment, then fine. Do it right and do it with integrity. It's a LOT easier for folks to stand behind that than the mess that DA McCulloch pulled.

 

[Boffo97]

So, our system of justice is a waste of money?

No, because the system worked.

It would be a waste of money to indict Wilson though because the findings of the forensics investigation showed absolutely no evidence that would justify it. And because if there was a trial and Wilson was acquitted, people would still be calling shenanigans because they (and I'm not including members of this forum in this they, unless they want to put themselves into it) would never accept any other narrative than the white police officer executing the black man trying to surrender no matter what happens.

 

[Mackeyser]

I really don't want to rehash Wilson's testimony, bit by bit.

That said, his initial testimony wasn't even close to his subsequent testimony and NEITHER testimony matched the DNA evidence outside the car, specifically the distance. The distance makes a difference. If as the DNA evidence pointed out, he was farther than Wilson claimed, then parts of his statement don't ring true. That would be a very important area for significant cross examination. Also, were I asking the questions, I'd be asking and reasking these questions from lots of different angles to ensure I was getting what happened, not a coached version of what happened. Neither Officer Wilson, nor any of the evidence was subject to scrutiny beyond identification. The ONLY evidence that received significant scrutiny was testimony against Officer Wilson. That's just not right.

See, I'm not on a Team. I'm upset about this bogus process which is endemic of a dysfunctional justice system in this country.

How do we KNOW that Officer Wilson is innocent? Officer Wilson didn't stand trial. The Grand Jury, as much as DA McCulloch wanted to turn it INTO a trial, wasn't a trial because none of Officer Wilson's testimony was subject to cross-examination (although, considering it would have been his office doing the Cross, not sure what difference THAT would have made, ultimately...)

My point all along and I'll say it again, is that the PROCESS was bogus. I'm certain that he should have been indicted. When 0.006875% of Federal Grand Jury indictments come back No True (11 out of over 160,000 in 2012), we have enough DATA to let us know HOW the process works every day in municipal, state and federal courts and what the outcome is almost every.single.time.

Now, I've also said that I'm dubious that he would have been found guilty because of the extra room made in the law for police officers, the conflicting eye-witness testimony (including how NO-ONE's testimony fully matched the DNA evidence) and the lack of video evidence.

So, if you're trying to argue Officer Wilson's innocence with me, we're talking past one another.

The trial was the place to determine that and the DA ensured Wilson and his family wouldn't have that. They also ensured that the Brown family didn't have their day in court.

 

[Mackeyser]

No, because the system worked.

It would be a waste of money to indict Wilson though because the findings of the forensics investigation showed absolutely no evidence that would justify it. And because if there was a trial and Wilson was acquitted, people would still be calling shenanigans because they (and I'm not including members of this forum in this they, unless they want to put themselves into it) would never accept any other narrative than the white police officer executing the black man trying to surrender no matter what happens.

Well, sometimes that happens. It. Just. Does.



And in this case, the system did NOT work because the DA misused the Grand Jury.

If the system worked, the DA would have either recused or kept exculpatory evidence OUT of the Grand Jury packet.

Let's be clear. The DA is NOT supposed to provide ALL evidence to the Grand Jury. It is NOT their job to adjudicate the matter. Their job is to be presented with ENOUGH evidence to INDICT. That's it.

I will quote Justice Scalia again:

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."

Too many people misunderstand the role of the Grand Jury and think that the DA's use of it to "exonerate" Officer Wilson was proper.

Well, firstly, it didn't exonerate Officer Wilson because none of the evidence, ESPECIALLY the testimony of Officer Wilson was subject to Prosecutorial Cross examination. Yet another reason McCulloch should have recused. His ADAs questions clearly were meant to aid in Officer Wilson's defense and NOT clarify or further the charges against Officer Wilson.

Secondly, the DA's role in front of the Grand Jury is to GET AN INDICTMENT. It's a PROSECUTORIAL role. They are not impartial in that respect. They are expressly meant to select evidence and generally ONLY select just enough evidence to indict. It's almost unheard of for a DA to present all evidence to the Grand Jury for a host of reasons. The DA then walks the Grand Jury through the evidence every step of the way explaining WHY they should indict. Every time. Except in this case, they not only did NOT do any of this, they also included exculpatory evidence that submarined their own case.

So, no. Absolutely NOT. The system did NOT work. You may have a belief or want or like an outcome or whatever, but it's just flat incorrect to say that the system worked.

It.Just.Did.Not.

 

[RamzFanz]

I can't really say one way or the other yet if what the prosecutor did was not proper. It seems it was improper to take it to the grand jury. Giving them all of the evidence was unusual, but improper to tell the whole truth? To not attempt to force an indictment where the evidence would never lead to one? That sounds improper and immoral to me.

At least this way if new evidence comes out, it can be handed back to a grand jury. If he were tried on this evidence, there's no doubt he would be found not guilty.

 

[RamzFanz]

Well, sometimes that happens. It. Just. Does.



And in this case, the system did NOT work because the DA misused the Grand Jury.

If the system worked, the DA would have either recused or kept exculpatory evidence OUT of the Grand Jury packet.

Let's be clear. The DA is NOT supposed to provide ALL evidence to the Grand Jury. It is NOT their job to adjudicate the matter. Their job is to be presented with ENOUGH evidence to INDICT. That's it.

I will quote Justice Scalia again:

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."

Too many people misunderstand the role of the Grand Jury and think that the DA's use of it to "exonerate" Officer Wilson was proper.

Well, firstly, it didn't exonerate Officer Wilson because none of the evidence, ESPECIALLY the testimony of Officer Wilson was subject to Prosecutorial Cross examination. Yet another reason McCulloch should have recused. His ADAs questions clearly were meant to aid in Officer Wilson's defense and NOT clarify or further the charges against Officer Wilson.

Secondly, the DA's role in front of the Grand Jury is to GET AN INDICTMENT. It's a PROSECUTORIAL role. They are not impartial in that respect. They are expressly meant to select evidence and generally ONLY select just enough evidence to indict. It's almost unheard of for a DA to present all evidence to the Grand Jury for a host of reasons. The DA then walks the Grand Jury through the evidence every step of the way explaining WHY they should indict. Every time. Except in this case, they not only did NOT do any of this, they also included exculpatory evidence that submarined their own case.

So, no. Absolutely NOT. The system did NOT work. You may have a belief or want or like an outcome or whatever, but it's just flat incorrect to say that the system worked.

It.Just.Did.Not.

And in that case there was evidence of a crime and it went to trial.

"South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, which acts as an investigative unit, stated that Groubert “did without justification unlawfully shoot Levar Jones.” Groubert was fired, arrested, and charged with assault and battery of a high and aggregated nature, a felony with a penalty upon conviction of as many as 20 years in prison."

 

[Mackeyser]

Yeah, there's no middle ground here that I see. You claim Brown's family won't get justice when in fact it's Wilson and his family who won't. There is no evidence of a crime of any kind by Wilson yet he has lost his job and will certainly have to move and live in fear. It's ridiculous. Justice, with what we know now, would have been to not indict or present to the grand jury.

A 6'4" 290 LB man robbed a store and attacked an officer putting him in fear of his life. He beat the officer. He went for the officer's gun. He charged at that officer and was shot and stopped, then charged again and was killed. That's what happened according to ALL of the evidence and ALL of the credible testimony. It's there for everyone to see yet they continue to make false statements about what happened.

Those witnesses that had the spotlight for months creating this caos were all found to be lying in one manner or another.

One admitted she WAS NOT EVEN THERE! Johnson just lied his butt off and got caught changing his story.

The charge that the prosecutor didn't want to indict just seems like sour grapes to me. Why won't anyone simply acknowledge that there was no way he would be found guilty because there is ZERO evidence that counters his claims?

Actually, what I said was that neither family would get justice. And that was bad in principle. That's pretty important. The way you paint it, I'm taking sides.

I'm not.

Secondly, you point out about discrepancies. You know why you know about them? Because the DA's office heavily scrutinized those statements that contradicted Officer Wilson's.

You know what you didn't see? That same level of scrutiny applied to Officer Wilson. So, Officer Wilson couldn't possibly be caught lying (not saying he was lying, but no one put his story through the same rigorous vetting as the other witnesses).

I'm just pointing out that if you go looking for an outcome, it's pretty easy to find it. When the DA convenes the Grand Jury, goes hard on witnesses who contradict Officer Wilson and leaves Officer Wilson's several accounts uncontested... then WONDER OF WONDERS! all the evidence points to one conclusion!

The charge the the prosecutor didn't indict isn't sour grapes. It's indicative of him not doing his job. He failed his community before the Grand Jury by not pursuing an indictment.

The DA is the one who lost faith in the very system he represents by refusing the play HIS role in it. HE is the DA, but instead he manipulated the Grand Jury process to obtain a summary judgment from the Grand Jury, a finding that they cannot return and that their finding DOES NOT MEAN.

All the Grand Jury finding means is that Officer Wilson won't go to trial.

That's it. Doesn't mean he's innocent. Doesn't mean he's guilty. Just means he's not going to trial. And especially because of how DA McCulloch manipulated the process to ensure Officer Wilson wouldn't be indicted, it REALLY doesn't say anything about Officer Wilson's guilt or innocence.

I'll say it again. If you are basing Officer Wilson's "innocence" or his "exoneration" on this Grand Jury process, the Grand Jury findings or solely based on evidence presented to the Grand Jury, then... I don't know what to say. You may as well determine who the best martial artist in the world is by watching Wrestlmania because both outcomes were predetermined well in advance.