Ferguson Grand Jury Decision Discussion Thread
- Thread starter William Haskins
- Start date
The issue isn't that there are so many threads.
The issue is that there are so many "unique" incidents that start their own threads.
"Unique" incidents that all share two facts: Dead, unarmed black man. Alive, armed white cop. How is it that humans can see unrelated coincidences and construct elaborate conspiracy theories explaining why the Queen of England is a lizard woman...but they can look at repeated, blatantly obvious trends and go: "Ehhh."
The issue is that there are so many "unique" incidents that start their own threads.
"Unique" incidents that all share two facts: Dead, unarmed black man. Alive, armed white cop. How is it that humans can see unrelated coincidences and construct elaborate conspiracy theories explaining why the Queen of England is a lizard woman...but they can look at repeated, blatantly obvious trends and go: "Ehhh."
Amadan
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
The thing is, there is a disconnect here, because there are frequently two conversations going on.
One conversation is about the role of systemic racism in society, which applies to all of these incidents.
The other conversation is about the particulars of each individual case.
I alluded to this earlier, when I said that Wilson might have been acting reasonably, rationally, and correctly when he shot Mike Brown, and it could still be true that Mike Brown would not be dead if he weren't black.
Frequently what's going on here is that one person is talking about one thing (the role of racism in shaping interactions between police and civilians and constructing an entire sequence of events which could bring an unarmed black man into a fatal confrontation with a police officer), and another person is talking about the other thing (was Officer Wilson a racist and/or bad cop who shot Mike Brown because he was black?).
So person A thinks that when person B says "Well, we don't know whether Wilson acted correctly or not" he hears "It's okay for police to shoot unarmed black men." And when person A says "The police are more likely to shoot unarmed black men because of racism," person B hears "Officer Wilson was a racist who shot Mike Brown because he's black."
Of course, sometimes people do conflate those two perspectives - someone may indeed believe both in systemic racism and that Wilson, specifically, acted irresponsibly.
The frustration from one side is in believing that people nitpicking the particulars of an individual case aren't seeing the big picture, and from the other side, that people concerned about the big picture don't really care about innocence or guilt, or seeing impartial justice done, in individual cases.
One conversation is about the role of systemic racism in society, which applies to all of these incidents.
The other conversation is about the particulars of each individual case.
I alluded to this earlier, when I said that Wilson might have been acting reasonably, rationally, and correctly when he shot Mike Brown, and it could still be true that Mike Brown would not be dead if he weren't black.
Frequently what's going on here is that one person is talking about one thing (the role of racism in shaping interactions between police and civilians and constructing an entire sequence of events which could bring an unarmed black man into a fatal confrontation with a police officer), and another person is talking about the other thing (was Officer Wilson a racist and/or bad cop who shot Mike Brown because he was black?).
So person A thinks that when person B says "Well, we don't know whether Wilson acted correctly or not" he hears "It's okay for police to shoot unarmed black men." And when person A says "The police are more likely to shoot unarmed black men because of racism," person B hears "Officer Wilson was a racist who shot Mike Brown because he's black."
Of course, sometimes people do conflate those two perspectives - someone may indeed believe both in systemic racism and that Wilson, specifically, acted irresponsibly.
The frustration from one side is in believing that people nitpicking the particulars of an individual case aren't seeing the big picture, and from the other side, that people concerned about the big picture don't really care about innocence or guilt, or seeing impartial justice done, in individual cases.
The show is based on the memoirs of an embedded reported during the invasion of Iraq. So, by your answer I would say that you have no idea what I'm talking about.
If you are reading my posts, I do not possibly see how you can say I'm saying "ehh." I don't read anyone on this thread as saying "ehh." Actually, I think pretty much everyone is agreeing we've had too many such incidents, and that we've got a problem. And from my observation, there appears to be pretty much universal agreement that the Garner grand jury got it wrong.
But you can agree with all of that, and yet not believe that there was enough evidence to conclude that Wilson was a racist murderer who should rot in prison -- or, unfortunately, even enough evidence to stand trial. And, with all respect, multiple threads on AW covering multiple pages of opinion and outrage (however justifiable) doesn't provide one shred additional proof beyond that shown in the grand jury.
I agree that we have issues in the system that need fixing. We absolutely do. Beyond with the police and grand juries, we have issues once we get to trial -- which is why we have too many innocent people in prison. But making judgments steered more by emotion and outrage than by evidence are the way a lot of those people got there.
I would say I know exactly what you're talking about.
What I have no idea of is what a show about the memoirs of an embedded reporter during the invasion of Iraq has to do the Ferguson Grand Jury Decision Discussion Thread.
The response was to how police should use "hand to hand combat" and "non-lethal" more often and I used a simple example of how non-lethal intent can still lead to lethal results.
Witness 40 turns out to have not been anywhere near Canfield Drive during the incident.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236
That's fucking outrageous.
I must say, Witness 40 seemed like she was a crackpot full of shit, and the FBI clearly had problems with her. See Volume 15 of the GJ testimony, starting around page 153. They spent some time questioning her on her (impossible) description of how she left the crime scene, and about her internet searches about the Ferguson case before talking to the police. She admits in her FBI interview that she's "not the best witness," gets lost easily, forgets stuff, and has bad short term memory. She admitted to making racist and "unchristian" remarks about the case on Facebook (including "ape fest" and "fucking niggers") and admitted to collecting money for Officer Wilson. After playing the FBI interview, they called her in front of the grand jury, where she came across as equally insane, and was questioned with some clear skepticism. So, FWIW, the grand jury did know all of that info about her.
Frankly, she comes across as kooky and not at all credible, IMO. It's hard for me to believe anyone gave her testimony weight.
That said, we don't know that, and IMO she shouldn't have been in front of the grand jury at all. Assuming the Smoking Gun has it right, the fact that she was elsewhere at the time of the shooting could have been ascertained.
And (though I've said before how much stock I put in the general reliability of Daily Kos), FWIW, they made the same observation about Witness 40 back on December 2, before this latest revelation came out.
On the one hand, it's hard to believe anyone with half a brain would put much stock in her testimony. On the other hand, IMO this is something they could (and should) have weeded out before it got to the grand jury.
Very, very fucked up.
I must say, Witness 40 seemed like she was a crackpot full of shit, and the FBI clearly had problems with her. See Volume 15 of the GJ testimony, starting around page 153. They spent some time questioning her on her (impossible) description of how she left the crime scene, and about her internet searches about the Ferguson case before talking to the police. She admits in her FBI interview that she's "not the best witness," gets lost easily, forgets stuff, and has bad short term memory. She admitted to making racist and "unchristian" remarks about the case on Facebook (including "ape fest" and "fucking niggers") and admitted to collecting money for Officer Wilson. After playing the FBI interview, they called her in front of the grand jury, where she came across as equally insane, and was questioned with some clear skepticism. So, FWIW, the grand jury did know all of that info about her.
Frankly, she comes across as kooky and not at all credible, IMO. It's hard for me to believe anyone gave her testimony weight.
That said, we don't know that, and IMO she shouldn't have been in front of the grand jury at all. Assuming the Smoking Gun has it right, the fact that she was elsewhere at the time of the shooting could have been ascertained.
And (though I've said before how much stock I put in the general reliability of Daily Kos), FWIW, they made the same observation about Witness 40 back on December 2, before this latest revelation came out.
On the one hand, it's hard to believe anyone with half a brain would put much stock in her testimony. On the other hand, IMO this is something they could (and should) have weeded out before it got to the grand jury.
Very, very fucked up.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 3,579
- Reaction score
- 590
- Location
- Washington State
- Website
- shaunhorton.blogspot.com
Thus, part of the problem with the DA not having any interest in the case and just dumping the box of evidence at the feet of the Jury like he did.
Also, while it's hard to believe anybody took this lady's testimony seriously, the fact that her testimony was so heavily bias against Brown only gives more fuel to those who claim the GJ inquiry was never going to indict Wilson. They'll point to this and say the GJ was never informed how completely unreliable this woman's testimony was, and that they were somehow convinced she was worth listening to.
Also, while it's hard to believe anybody took this lady's testimony seriously, the fact that her testimony was so heavily bias against Brown only gives more fuel to those who claim the GJ inquiry was never going to indict Wilson. They'll point to this and say the GJ was never informed how completely unreliable this woman's testimony was, and that they were somehow convinced she was worth listening to.
It looks to me like what they did was err on the side of dumping everything -- absofuckinglutely everything -- in front of the grand jury and having them sort it out the way a prosecutor normally would before bringing it to a grand jury.
I am betting that the fear was that if they weeded stuff out beforehand as not credible, they'd be attacked for that. E.g., if you heard (without actually reading Witness 40's totally ludicrous FBI interview), that the prosecutor had omitted to put a witness who'd been interviewed by the FBI in front of the grand jury, the assumption would probably be "oh, that witness was bad for Wilson -- that's why they kept the witness away from the grand jury." So the prosecutor likely figured that the best course was to dump the entire bag, and leave it to the grand jury's common sense.
If that was what we always did in grand jury proceedings, fine; that might not necessarily be a bad approach -- give 'em all the info possible, and let them sort it, rather than cherry picking. But the fact is, it isn't. And that's yet another reason why we need to take a cold, hard look at the way we do grand jury proceedings.
The only thing I can say, after reading Witness 40's testimony, is that only an incredibly biased or incredibly stupid grand juror would put any stock in her testimony. Seriously. Read it. Or at least read the snippets Daily Kos quotes in my link in my last post. I wouldn't trust the woman if she said the earth rotated around the sun. She's clearly racist, ridiculously and obviously biased in favor of Wilson, mentally ill, and the FBI actually does a decent job on casting doubt about whether she was even there.
ETA:
This is one reason why a chart like the one PBS did, though helpful, doesn't really give you a full picture. Witness 40 doesn't appear on that chart. But if she had, the fact that she said Brown was charging would be pretty meaningless because when you read her testimony, IMO it's obvious she and everything she says should be disregarded.
(Btw, I've done charts like that, or had others do them for me, especially when I've had cases with lots of witnesses. But I always include quotes using the actual words the witness used (e.g., "advanced" "staggered" "walked" "charged"), page number references, and any caveats I have about the reliability of the testimony. Also, I usually include a column that gives a general assessment of the witness/testimony. My charts are a lot longer than one page, of course. Most news readers probably wouldn't get through them unless they really cared. But you can glean a lot more from them than from something like the PBS chart.
ETA:
I'm thinking that maybe what the prosecutors/police/FBI could have done, in light of the clear skepticism they had for Witness 40, is do what The Smoking Gun apparently did -- ascertain that she couldn't have been at the crime scene. That would give them a nice neat reason for keeping her testimony from the grand jury. I'm guessing they didn't do that because lots of work/limited resources. But this case is prominent and controversial enough, and this witness is out there enough, that, I dunno, I think I might've tried to assign someone to track it down.
I am betting that the fear was that if they weeded stuff out beforehand as not credible, they'd be attacked for that. E.g., if you heard (without actually reading Witness 40's totally ludicrous FBI interview), that the prosecutor had omitted to put a witness who'd been interviewed by the FBI in front of the grand jury, the assumption would probably be "oh, that witness was bad for Wilson -- that's why they kept the witness away from the grand jury." So the prosecutor likely figured that the best course was to dump the entire bag, and leave it to the grand jury's common sense.
If that was what we always did in grand jury proceedings, fine; that might not necessarily be a bad approach -- give 'em all the info possible, and let them sort it, rather than cherry picking. But the fact is, it isn't. And that's yet another reason why we need to take a cold, hard look at the way we do grand jury proceedings.
The only thing I can say, after reading Witness 40's testimony, is that only an incredibly biased or incredibly stupid grand juror would put any stock in her testimony. Seriously. Read it. Or at least read the snippets Daily Kos quotes in my link in my last post. I wouldn't trust the woman if she said the earth rotated around the sun. She's clearly racist, ridiculously and obviously biased in favor of Wilson, mentally ill, and the FBI actually does a decent job on casting doubt about whether she was even there.
ETA:
This is one reason why a chart like the one PBS did, though helpful, doesn't really give you a full picture. Witness 40 doesn't appear on that chart. But if she had, the fact that she said Brown was charging would be pretty meaningless because when you read her testimony, IMO it's obvious she and everything she says should be disregarded.
(Btw, I've done charts like that, or had others do them for me, especially when I've had cases with lots of witnesses. But I always include quotes using the actual words the witness used (e.g., "advanced" "staggered" "walked" "charged"), page number references, and any caveats I have about the reliability of the testimony. Also, I usually include a column that gives a general assessment of the witness/testimony. My charts are a lot longer than one page, of course. Most news readers probably wouldn't get through them unless they really cared. But you can glean a lot more from them than from something like the PBS chart.
ETA:
I'm thinking that maybe what the prosecutors/police/FBI could have done, in light of the clear skepticism they had for Witness 40, is do what The Smoking Gun apparently did -- ascertain that she couldn't have been at the crime scene. That would give them a nice neat reason for keeping her testimony from the grand jury. I'm guessing they didn't do that because lots of work/limited resources. But this case is prominent and controversial enough, and this witness is out there enough, that, I dunno, I think I might've tried to assign someone to track it down.
Last edited:
Can such a "witness" still be charged with perjury, or at least something like lying to police in an official investigation or malicious interference in an investigation? I sure hope so.
Yup. It's almost as if Bob McCulloch wanted Witness 40 to be heard by the grand jury.
No do-overs.
Yep.
It's one thing if a witness might have made a mistake -- happens all the time. E.g., I don't see prosecuting Dorian Johnson for perjury, even though a couple of the things he said are contradicted by the forensic evidence. He might be wrong; that doesn't mean he's lying.
But if this nut wasn't even there, yeah, she lied in a sworn proceeding. Her only defense might be that she's completely batshit. (And she is, IMO.)
Maybe. FWIW, I've got to say as a lawyer -- I would never, ever, ever, in a million years put a witness like this in front of a judge or jury. Clearly batshit witnesses do your case no favors. Indeed, they can hurt it. I wouldn't want this kook associated with any case of mine. Even if I were certain she was really a genuine witness, I wouldn't use her (and it's clear from the questioning that they doubt she was). If she were the only witness, I'd drop the damn case, if I were a prosecutor. No jury would believe this loon.
ETA:
If I were trying to get Wilson off, I'd be afraid that putting this racist loon in as support for the idea that Brown was charging would backfire -- and the g.j. would say "this is the kind of biased nutcase supporting Wilson's story?"
Conversely, of course, you never know -- the grand jury may have had enough biased morons who'd give credence to her. Hard for me to believe, because you'd need a few, and she's clearly crazy. But hey -- God only knows people can be fucked-up idiots.
Any way you look at it, in the interests of justice (for either Brown or Wilson, or for the sake of the whole damn system), I'd want to weed this kook and kooks like her out if I possibly could. Yeah, I would've had someone follow up on Witness 40's whereabouts that day, even if someone had to go without sleep for a couple of days to chase it down.
That doesn't mean McCulloch would follow my approach, of course.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2009
- Messages
- 6,902
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Age
- 50
- Location
- MA
- Website
- www.rebeccaburrell.com
Witness 40's testimony has been pretty widely quoted in conservative blogs and publications, so the whole thing is pretty gross IMO, and really should be another strike against McCullough's handling of the GJ.
More generally speaking, CNN had a similar article the other day - it included an interesting exchange with witness 37:
CNN then put that question to a bunch of prosecutors. They got a range of answers, as one would expect. Most have been covered in the last few posts here.
I tend to agree with the idea that he was trying to befuddle the jury and that adding more unreliable witnesses was a good way to do so. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea that he had to present "everything" or risk charges of bias, but all he had to say was it was determined she was elsewhere and fabricated her story.
More generally speaking, CNN had a similar article the other day - it included an interesting exchange with witness 37:
CNN then put that question to a bunch of prosecutors. They got a range of answers, as one would expect. Most have been covered in the last few posts here.
I tend to agree with the idea that he was trying to befuddle the jury and that adding more unreliable witnesses was a good way to do so. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea that he had to present "everything" or risk charges of bias, but all he had to say was it was determined she was elsewhere and fabricated her story.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 3,579
- Reaction score
- 590
- Location
- Washington State
- Website
- shaunhorton.blogspot.com
McCulloch speaks on some of the witnesses lying to the grand jury.
How is this not somehow a breach of his position? To send witnesses that he knew were lying in front of the Grand Jury?
Oh, and of course they're not going to pursue any charges of perjury.
How is this not somehow a breach of his position? To send witnesses that he knew were lying in front of the Grand Jury?
Oh, and of course they're not going to pursue any charges of perjury.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Messages
- 15,903
- Reaction score
- 4,652
- Location
- In a house
- Website
- vincentmorrone.com
IIRC, there were some witnesses that admitted they lied who testified against Wilson. So if he were to pursue perjury, he'd have to pursue against them too. I could be wrong on that however.
Yeah. You could be wrong about that so how about a citation about those witnesses admitting they lied who testified against Wilson?
I am curious though. How can anyone who feels glad Darren Wilson wasn't indicted and justice was served can square a district attorney admitting he allowed a witness to testify in front of a grand jury and knowing all the while she was a racist and nut lying her ass off.
How exactly does that square with even the vaguest notion of a fair and impartial justice system? How is this not prosecutorial misconduct?
This is why the chant of "The Whole Damn System is Guilty" resonates so. The truth has a way of doing that.
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Messages
- 15,903
- Reaction score
- 4,652
- Location
- In a house
- Website
- vincentmorrone.com
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2009
- Messages
- 6,902
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Age
- 50
- Location
- MA
- Website
- www.rebeccaburrell.com
The difference is that Witnesses 35 and 37 were actually witnesses. Witness 40 was not. She should have been tossed out as the racist crackpot she is.
Any witness who admitted lying to McCullough should have never been put in front of the GJ. Mark or Cassandra would know this far better than I do, but I *think* it's illegal for a lawyer to knowingly put forth a witness whose testimony is false - it's called suborning perjury.
The argument that he wanted to put 'everything' in front of the GJ for fear of incurring public wrath otherwise holds no water for me at this point, if it ever did. He was going to take heat no matter what - at the very least, you'd think he'd want his conduct to be ethical.
eta: as far as suborning perjury goes:
Under federal Criminal Law (18 U.S.C.A. § 1622), five elements must be proved to convict a person of subornation of perjury. It first must be shown that the defendant made an agreement with a person to testify falsely. There must be proof that perjury has in fact been committed and that the statements of the perjurer were material. The prosecutor must also provide evidence that the perjurer made such statements willfully with knowledge of their falsity. Finally, there must be proof that the procurer had knowledge that the perjurer's statements were false.
INAL, but seems to me like McCullough is skating perilously close to meeting those requirements.
Any witness who admitted lying to McCullough should have never been put in front of the GJ. Mark or Cassandra would know this far better than I do, but I *think* it's illegal for a lawyer to knowingly put forth a witness whose testimony is false - it's called suborning perjury.
The argument that he wanted to put 'everything' in front of the GJ for fear of incurring public wrath otherwise holds no water for me at this point, if it ever did. He was going to take heat no matter what - at the very least, you'd think he'd want his conduct to be ethical.
eta: as far as suborning perjury goes:
Under federal Criminal Law (18 U.S.C.A. § 1622), five elements must be proved to convict a person of subornation of perjury. It first must be shown that the defendant made an agreement with a person to testify falsely. There must be proof that perjury has in fact been committed and that the statements of the perjurer were material. The prosecutor must also provide evidence that the perjurer made such statements willfully with knowledge of their falsity. Finally, there must be proof that the procurer had knowledge that the perjurer's statements were false.
INAL, but seems to me like McCullough is skating perilously close to meeting those requirements.
Last edited: