The prosecutors actually made W40 look bad in front of the GJ.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_4cf83e2e-5241-50ce-a3e5-0097eb9b31dc.html
On Oct. 23, the grand jury heard a tape of investigators picking apart McElroy’s story and then listened to her testify in person, as prosecutors asked questions that poked additional holes in her claims.
McElroy said she knew that prosecutors were trying to discredit her. “They were trying to discredit me because of my racial slurs,” she said.
Are you unable to separate the actions of the legitimate protesters from the actions of the illegitimate looters? Do you really want society to get to a point where attacking the government becomes a reality?
It's an unfortunate consequence of what happens when people reach their tipping point.
And without the "protests", there would be NO looting, burning, and destroying businesses because the cops would squash them like lowlife bugs that they are. The looters/rioters would not dare to take on anyone with a gun. See examples of Katrina and LA riot.
Excuses, excuses, and more excuses for lawless behavior. Are we still a nation of law and order or are we a nation of anarchy/rioting/looting?
The prosecutors actually made W40 look bad in front of the GJ.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_4cf83e2e-5241-50ce-a3e5-0097eb9b31dc.html
I can't figure out why so many media outlets are failing to note that the GJ was well aware that witness 40's story was bogus...
I believe W40 appears in volume 15 page 85.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/multim...tml_47d95368-a8f2-5ae1-9173-6653c15d0f0e.html
Lol! That's kind of the point isn't it? We have citizens who are expected and required to follow the law and then we have another group who seem to be above the law and aren't held responsible for their actions.
What did you think was going to happen?
Excellent! You wouldn't happen to know where about in the transcripts the prosecutors question her do you?
I still don't understand why, witnesses with faulty stories, were allowed to give testimony. An indictment isn't the time to put forth both sides of the story, that's what a trial is for.
The GJ had spoken. You can whine and bitch and make excuses all you want. My point is still valid. Peaceful protest = yes. Riot, loot, destroy businesses = NO. Period.
If Maura McShane, the Presiding Judge of the 21st Circuit, agrees with this assessment, she could appoint a new prosecutor and effectively restart the case against Darren Wilson.
Under Missouri law (MO Rev Stat § 56.110) the presiding judge of the court with criminal jurisdiction — in this case Judge McShane — can appoint another prosecutor if the prosecuting attorney demonstrates a conflict of interest or bias. Courts have interpreted this provision broadly to include “conflicts that reveal themselves through the prosecutor’s conduct in the case.” In State v. Copeland, a 1996 case, a Missouri court replaced the prosecutor because the judge “sensed that [the prosecutor’s] sympathies for [the defendant] may have prevented him from being an effective advocate for the state.” The judge “found the adversarial process to have broken down in that [the prosecutor] appeared to be advocating the defendant’s position.”
Have you been tested?A grand jury can be reconvened at any time if the prosecutor decides there is evidence to indite. The rioting was punishment for the prosecutor for refusing to do his job.
I wish they had destroyed all of Missouri. What a trash state.
The theory is that the Prosecutor has a close relationship with the Police so he intentionally threw in "witnesses" that he knew were weak to distract the Jurors.
You could also say that it was a weak case to begin with so he didn't want it to advance because he had more important items to deal with.
Nor will there ever be a trial.
Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.
Wilson’s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren’t directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.
“If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,” said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen.”
It is enough to make some wonder if the prosecutor in Ferguson really wanted an indictment of Officer Wilson.
There should be no question. If he wanted an indictment all he had to do was show one or two pieces of evidence supporting Wilson being guilty to the Grand Jury, or better yet direct indict without going to a Grand Jury at all. This was all a show in the hope that interest would die down, or failing that to have a scapegoat so the DA's office didn't take all the heat.
The rioting was punishment for the prosecutor for refusing to do his job.
in other words, mob justice.
get a life troll.
A grand jury can be reconvened at any time if the prosecutor decides there is evidence to indite. The rioting was punishment for the prosecutor for refusing to do his job.
I wish they had destroyed all of Missouri. What a trash state.
Ferguson didn't hold its officers accountable and they are paying for it now. We all are.
The theory is that the Prosecutor has a close relationship with the Police so he intentionally threw in "witnesses" that he knew were weak to distract the Jurors.
You could also say that it was a weak case to begin with so he didn't want it to advance because he had more important items to deal with.
There should be no question. If he wanted an indictment all he had to do was show one or two pieces of evidence supporting Wilson being guilty to the Grand Jury, or better yet direct indict without going to a Grand Jury at all. This was all a show in the hope that interest would die down, or failing that to have a scapegoat so the DA's office didn't take all the heat.
That may be the case so why not turn it over to special prosecutor? Community already has impression system is rigged.
Even if result turned out the same the case would have been "prosecuted".
And, regardless of any of the "witness" testimony, the physical evidence - the stuff that doesn't lie, all points to it being a justifiable shooting. Why would he want to indict a man when all of the physical evidence supports his innocence? Anyone with a lukewarm IQ who has read about all of the physical evidence knows that there's no way in the world an honest jury would find him guilty of any crime.I agree the Ferguson protests were a disaster but I don't believe their grievances are being ignored. If anything, it seems like their grievances are only picking up in steam. While ATPN is not indicative of the wider world, just look at how many police brutality threads there are. Look at the nearly unanimous desire by just this one forum for on body cameras for law enforcement. While the protests in Ferguson have detracted a bit from their message, the message, in my humble opinion, still seems to be spreading. The saddest part about all of this is that it takes so long for things to hit a tipping point before there's enough activism to try and push for a change.
His job is to serve the public interest; not railroad an innocent person for political and/or racial cover.
And, regardless of any of the "witness" testimony, the physical evidence - the stuff that doesn't lie, all points to it being a justifiable shooting. Why would he want to indict a man when all of the physical evidence supports his innocence? Anyone with a lukewarm IQ who has read about all of the physical evidence knows that there's no way in the world an honest jury would find him guilty of any crime.