Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Faryn Balyncd

(5,125 posts)
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 10:02 AM Aug 2014

Post-Dispatch: "McCulloch's public statements were untrue."

McCulloch has a history.

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's description of McCulloch's public assertions regarding the 2001 secret grand jury proceeding in which the officers who shot unarmed suspects Earl Murray and Ronald Beasley 21 times in the parking lot of a Jack in the Box, and were no-billed after claiming the suspects tried to run over them:



Grand jury proceedings are secret. McCulloch, in telling the public what the grand jury had found, repeatedly insisted that “every witness” had testified that the two detectives fired to defend themselves after the suspect tried to run them over with his car.

The Post-Dispatch reviewed the previously secret grand jury tapes and found that McCulloch’s public statements were untrue. Only three of the 13 detectives who testified said the suspect’s car had moved forward, in the direction of the two officers who shot him and his passenger. Two of those were the shooters themselves. The third was a detective who McCulloch later said he considered charging with perjury because his account was so at odds with the facts.

Contrary to McCulloch’s public statements, the grand jury tapes showed that four other detectives testified that they never saw the suspect’s car travel toward the officers....McCulloch never brought independent evidence before the grand jury to sort out who was right....Nor did he request the testimony of a nationally noted collision expert who investigated the case for the Justice Department. He determined that the suspect’s car had always been in reverse — added proof that it did not move toward the detectives....


more at: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/sign-petitions-seeking-special-prosecutor-in-michael-brown-shooting/article_d0cc6e7f-8b32-5153-8ab4-86ebdc4659ca.html












30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Post-Dispatch: "McCulloch's public statements were untrue." (Original Post) Faryn Balyncd Aug 2014 OP
Will be interesting to see how the wait and see crowd deals... Anansi1171 Aug 2014 #1
Here's a little more on how McCulloch uses the grand jury system: Faryn Balyncd Aug 2014 #2
Seems to be a corrupt organization from top to bottom. /nt Marr Aug 2014 #22
We don't know that he is going to tank the grand jury case jeff47 Aug 2014 #8
Back during the Martin case I mentioned the DA was trying to lose and newbies flipped... Spitfire of ATJ Aug 2014 #24
Honestly, in this day and age, 1983 is so watered down DefenseLawyer Aug 2014 #26
"No one thinks twice about getting sued." Spitfire of ATJ Aug 2014 #29
Not just 1983 cases. Laelth Aug 2014 #30
Theres a long history of covering up bad cops there. HooptieWagon Aug 2014 #3
The asshole needs to recuse himself before someone does it for him...knr joeybee12 Aug 2014 #4
That's the governor's job. HubertHeaver Aug 2014 #7
First, you'll have to amend the Missouri Constitution to give him the power jeff47 Aug 2014 #9
Someone posted something yesterday stating the Governor could... joeybee12 Aug 2014 #10
Here's a story from 2013 jeff47 Aug 2014 #12
Yuk...thanks...nt joeybee12 Aug 2014 #13
The "putz" has a lot of political power pintobean Aug 2014 #16
Meanwhile scumbag McCulloch keeps disingenously insinuating the contrary: that VanGoghRocks Aug 2014 #14
What negoldie Aug 2014 #19
I'd be the first to agree with you, except in this case, the MO Gov cannot VanGoghRocks Aug 2014 #20
Post #16 shed some light on this BuelahWitch Aug 2014 #25
Not when he retires. He wants to run against Blunt. pintobean Aug 2014 #27
As I understand it, Lindsay Aug 2014 #28
Scumbag. GeorgeGist Aug 2014 #5
K&R ReRe Aug 2014 #6
MO law doesn't work that way. jeff47 Aug 2014 #15
Oops... ReRe Aug 2014 #18
OK... ReRe Aug 2014 #23
K & R !!! WillyT Aug 2014 #11
Kicked and recommended! Enthusiast Aug 2014 #17
K&R Quayblue Aug 2014 #21

Anansi1171

(793 posts)
1. Will be interesting to see how the wait and see crowd deals...
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 10:17 AM
Aug 2014

...with this Prosecutor. As with Angela Corrie in the Martin case, I smell bad-faith.

Faryn Balyncd

(5,125 posts)
2. Here's a little more on how McCulloch uses the grand jury system:
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 10:21 AM
Aug 2014




In 1997, McCulloch used a grand jury subpoena to identify a whistleblower who contacted the FBI and reported what he said was improper behavior by a member of then St. Louis County Executive George “Buzz” Westfall’s cabinet. The whistleblower was Russ Signorino, then an employee of the St. Louis County Economic Council. He sent an anonymous fax to the media from a Kinko’s store in Creve Coeur.

Without telling the grand jury what he was doing, McCulloch gave the subpoena to the St. Louis County police, who used it to obtain a video recording from Kinko’s showing who sent the fax. After he was identified, Signorino was forced to quit his county job.

McCulloch at first claimed that he had issued the grand jury subpoena because the fax contained a “threat.”

He later admitted that there never had been any threat and conceded that no crime was involved. He denied that he had abused the grand jury process to identity a whistleblower who was acting lawfully.


http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/sign-petitions-seeking-special-prosecutor-in-michael-brown-shooting/article_d0cc6e7f-8b32-5153-8ab4-86ebdc4659ca.html












jeff47

(26,549 posts)
8. We don't know that he is going to tank the grand jury case
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 11:57 AM
Aug 2014

so we should just wait and see what he does.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
24. Back during the Martin case I mentioned the DA was trying to lose and newbies flipped...
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 01:22 PM
Aug 2014

They could not even IMAGINE someone taking a dive.

Again, it was a case where they didn't even want to charge the shooter with a crime which sends the message that it's always open season on black people. (...but bag limits haven't been established yet)

Keep in mind that after a criminal case establishes guilt that the next step is the civil case for damages. Finding the perp innocent is a money saver for the town, county, state governments as the award would be in the millions.

 

DefenseLawyer

(11,101 posts)
26. Honestly, in this day and age, 1983 is so watered down
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 01:49 PM
Aug 2014

I don't think most cities and police forces really fear a civil rights case. Sure, some cases are settled, but that's much more of a public relations calculation than a legal one. In most districts the (mostly) right wing federal judges use qualified immunity to knock the majority of cases out of the box on summary judgment. That's another big part of the overall problem with modern police culture. No one thinks twice about getting sued.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
29. "No one thinks twice about getting sued."
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 02:22 PM
Aug 2014

Far too many unqualified people are put in positions that should require a professional.

There was a case not long ago of police responding to a mentally ill kid. Two uniforms were being patient when a detective shows up out of the blue. He watches for a while,...says, "We don't have time for this." and shoots the kid.

I suppose it was far more important for him to get back on the famed Case of the Pilfered Pizza.

Laelth

(32,017 posts)
30. Not just 1983 cases.
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 02:29 PM
Aug 2014

Cases under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are extremely hard to win in my jurisdiction. I take a big risk with either of these types of suits. In most cases, it's just not worth it.

-Laelth

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
3. Theres a long history of covering up bad cops there.
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 10:22 AM
Aug 2014

I hope while they're in town, the FBI and journalists start poking around in the closets... theres quite a few skeletons to be found. The DAs office is front and center in the culture of racism and corruption.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
9. First, you'll have to amend the Missouri Constitution to give him the power
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 11:59 AM
Aug 2014

MO law gives the decision entirely to the local prosecutor. There is no mechanism for the governor to replace the local prosecutor against his will.

There's lots of people demanding Nixon do so, but that doesn't mean he actually can.

 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
10. Someone posted something yesterday stating the Governor could...
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 12:00 PM
Aug 2014

Anyway, either way, Nixon should pressure the putz.

 

pintobean

(18,101 posts)
16. The "putz" has a lot of political power
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 12:20 PM
Aug 2014

in the largest county in the state. County primaries were just held 4 days before the Brown shooting. McCulloch won with over 70% of the vote. He also threw his support behind a relatively unknown councilman who upset the 10 year incumbent County Executive by more than a 2-1 margin.
Nixon has 2 years left as Governor. That's it, he's done due to term limits. Word is, he wants Blunt's senate seat. Nixon can't really fuck with the guy without jeopardizing that desire.

 

VanGoghRocks

(621 posts)
14. Meanwhile scumbag McCulloch keeps disingenously insinuating the contrary: that
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 12:08 PM
Aug 2014

only Nixon can remove him, that he's powerless to remove himself.

That is chicanery on a grand scale, Dreyfus Affair-style.

 

VanGoghRocks

(621 posts)
20. I'd be the first to agree with you, except in this case, the MO Gov cannot
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 12:39 PM
Aug 2014

simply 'name' a special prosecutor (barring, that is, enabling legislation from the MO state legislature).

Instead, McCulloch must first recuse himself.

But what McCulloch is doing is disingenuously insinuating that he can't step aside and that only Nixon can remove him, when the truth is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

Long and short: if scumbag McCulloch had one shred of human decency, he'd recuse himself ASAP and stop insulting the intelligence of his constituents and offending the decent opinion of mankind.

BuelahWitch

(9,083 posts)
25. Post #16 shed some light on this
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 01:37 PM
Aug 2014

Nixon doesn't want to cross McCulloch because it might prevent him from getting Roy Blount's Senate seat when Blount retires. Or something like that.

Lindsay

(3,276 posts)
28. As I understand it,
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 01:50 PM
Aug 2014

generally the governor cannot remove the prosecutor. However, the governor does have emergency power to do just that, and as he declared a State of Emergency in Ferguson, that does give him the power to remove the prosecutor from the case and name al alternative.

This looks to me like a political game of chicken, with neither Nixon nor McCulloch will to act with any honor whatsoever.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
6. K&R
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 11:48 AM
Aug 2014

First, thank you to St Louis Post-Dispatch! I sure hope they keep informing the public on McCulloch's machinations and how compromised he is.

Second, Mo AG, is there not a judge available to remove McCulloch from this case? Find one, for God's sake! The US Justice Dept and FBI are on the ground in that state, and if I were Gov Nixon and the MO AG, I would do the right thing and find a judge to get the job done. Otherwise, they (The Gov and AG of MO) might go down with McCulloch IF the US Dept of Justice and FBI takes action.

Thanks Faryn Balyncd for the OP!

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
15. MO law doesn't work that way.
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 12:17 PM
Aug 2014

The only person who can remove the local prosecutor is the local prosecutor. There is no mechanism in MO law for the AG to remove the local prosecutor.

Here's a story from 2013 with some very obvious problems with the local prosecutor, and how the AG could do nothing until the local prosecutor stepped aside.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
18. Oops...
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 12:25 PM
Aug 2014

... I formed my assumptions about a judge being able to replace McCulloch from the Post-Dispatch article. I guess I read it too fast. Will go back and slow my reading down. Thanks!

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
23. OK...
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 01:14 PM
Aug 2014

... I went back and re-read it. Did you read it? So is the Post-Dispatch reporting biased & false info? Jeesh...McCulloch sounds like the King of Missouri! He seems to have more power than the Gov & AG of MO. And I guess there's nothing the Feds can do, if they discover all the shit McCulloch's gotten away with? Outta here....

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Post-Dispatch: "McCu...