Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

LOL. Let me guess, you didn't read her testimony, did you?

Go read it, and then come back and tell me that the prosecutors didn't impeach her testimony.

The "football" comment is on page 119: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1370504/grand-jury-volume-15.pdf

By page 152, it's pretty clear she was never there.

By page 170, we know she is a racist, and learned everything she knows about the case from the internet. We know that from Mapquest, it looks like she could have exited as she describes, but that, in fact, she could not have.

 

Yeah, this story discredits certain Fox News punditry, not the actual grand jury decision.

 

And, what does it say about the current reporting that makes folks like LTL and SnarkShark think this is big news, and that the jury was fooled by a liar's testimony, that was not impeached by prosecutors?

It's also funny to me that this became news yesterday. It's been out there for a week.

Chris Hayes did a segment on it on the 10th:

 

Do any of us now understand why prosecutors don't want to put all of the evidence out before they're done investigating and/or presenting their evidence to a grand jury?

 

All right, yeah, I fell for the headline.

But you have to agree it's driving opinion ... it made me wonder if she was the person who called in to the radio show about the blowout orbital fracture.

 

Of course it's driving opinion. So is witness 41's account:

It's sort of funny, since Hayes jokes that someone else could have come along with a story, and waltzed into the jury room as "witness 41". But, that's not true. Before you could testify, you were interviewed by investigators, including the FBI.

Witness 40's entire interview was entered into evidence prior to her grand jury testimony, and the investigators also tore apart her account, so the grand jury knew what they were getting. Her journal was also entered into evidence.

And, here's the thing; we needed these witnesses to testify before the grand jury. Hayes and his guest say it was a strategy by the prosecutor to confuse the grand jurors with conflicting accounts. But, let's assume for a moment that the prosecutor never let witness 41 testify under oath. His account would still be out there. And, we would not have him, under oath, admitting that his testimony was "not completely true".

So, instead of crediting McCulloch for the great job he did of "curating" the evidence that the grand jury was presented, we would have people complaining that he didn't put this witness on the stand.

And, the same thing would have happened if he didn't put witness 40 on the stand, under oath. We know she's a racist liar, who only knows what she does based on news accounts and internet searches.

If she hadn't appeared before the grand jury -- and especially if Wilson had been indicted -- people would be howling that the prosecutor didn't put on a witness who backs Wilson's story.

McCulloch put all of these kooks before the grand jury. He let the grand jury weight their evidence, and their credibility. It was the right move.

 

Not by the standards of what a grand jury is supposed to accomplish.

Grand juries aren't there for a verdict. They're there to see if there should be a trial. And nearly always do.

And actually examining Darren Wilson's story would have been "the right move" too, if the goal was to get the best answers possible.

 

Ok. So, he shouldn't have put witness 40 or 41 on the stand?

And, what happens when, after the grand jury decides not to indict, witness 40 goes on MSNBC and tells his story, and says he talked to investigators, but that the prosecutor refused to let him appear before the grand jury?

We wouldn't have him admitting under oath that what he had said was "not completely true". And, this would be used to "drive opinion".

 

Witness 40 or 41?

In any case, if it's known that the person wasn't even at the event, it would be pretty easy to explain not including that person.

 

I'm not sure what SOP is for Grand Juries, but do prosecutors usually examine everyone who has claimed to be a witness, even if they know the testimony is unreliable, at best, or false, at worst?

It seems foolhardy - with respect to any case, not just this one - to introduce testimony or evidence that has already been discredited by investigators.

 

Yeah, because this was just a regular old case, and everyone would have been fine if the prosecutor didn't present a witness who said that Wilson shot Brown while Brown was on his knees, and his hands were up.

You really want to tell me that would have been fine?

 

That's the point. You either put them both on, or neither one of them on, right?