Grand jury documents rife with inconsistencies

[Nye Bevan]

FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) — Some witnesses said Michael Brown had been shot in the back. Another said he was lying face-down when Officer Darren Wilson finished him off. Still others acknowledged changing their stories to fit published details about the autopsy, or admitted that they didn't see the shooting at all.

An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made during the shooting investigation that were inconsistent, fabricated or provably wrong. For one, the autopsies ultimately showed Brown wasn't struck by any bullets in his back. Prosecutors exposed these inconsistencies before the jurors, which likely influenced their decision not to indict Wilson in Brown's death.

.....

Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown's, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown "on his knees with his hands in the air." He added: "I seen him shoot him in the head."

But when later pressed by the investigator, the friend said he hadn't seen the actual shooting because he was walking down the stairs at the time, and instead had heard details from someone in the apartment complex. "What you are saying you saw isn't forensically possible based on the evidence," the investigator told the friend. Shortly after that, the friend asked if he could leave. "I ain't feeling comfortable," he said.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7df14/grand-jury-documents-rife-inconsistencies

This case would have been a disaster for the prosecution if it had gone to trial.

[bhikkhu]

1. Which is one of the reasons to go to trial

Trial by anecdote is a miserably result. Under what conditions is it justifiable for police to shoot you in the head? I'm not sure, but the bar seems to be set pretty low lately.

[joeglow3]

3. Let's be honest, if it went to trial and he was let go, people would be just as pissed

From what I have seen, there is dick for evidence. You can't put someone on trial and spend as much as they would need on resources for a trial when it is pretty clear there is not near enough evidence for a conviction.

[bhikkhu]

5. I only read a couple of eyewitness accounts, but they were compelling

and I've kept out of all the internet and media up to this point. It sounds like the cause of death was an execution in the road from a safe distance, as the suspect raised his arms to surrender, according to witnesses. I'd rather see that decided in court.

[azmom]

2. Nevertheless, it should

Have gone to trial.

[global1]

4. St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch's Only Screw-Up In This Whole Thing Is....

releasing all the transcripts of the Grand Jury proceedings. If he would have kept them secret - it would be harder to question his motives.

[Rex]

6. So you only point out the inconsistencies that favor Wilson, nice try but fail.

[justiceischeap]

7. Yes, heaven forbid the AP point out Wilson's inconsistencies

The point of the matter is, Wilson was just as inconsistent as these witnesses in this report. He said different things during the grand jury than he did in his initial interview with detectives.

That's the point of a trial. One side tries to prove those inconsistencies mean malice, the other side tries to explain away those inconsistencies so they don't point to malice (like the prosecutors did in this case for Wilson). I am positive there are thousands of people that would have loved to have a grand jury like that one.

For example, has anyone asked or seen bullet trajectory evidence? Was it even done? I know that measurements weren't taken at the scene because according to that grand jury witness, "It was obvious what happened." So, how can we honestly say that a trial would have been a mess? We don't even know what, if any, evidence the prosecutor decided to hold onto. We only have his word that he gave the grand jury all the evidence and since this trial (and make no doubt about it, that's what this was, it wasn't a grand jury) took place in private and the prosecution can present what ever they want in the way of evidence doesn't mean they actually showed all the evidence.

[pkdu]

8. Complete Shite, but hey , keep posting it. Nt

[Nye Bevan]

9. I believe this AP story is based on the release of the complete grand jury proceedings.

What part of my OP do you see as "complete shite"?

[pkdu]

10. how about the first sentence you omitted

"Bob McCulloch, the St. Louis County prosecutor, said the grand jury had to weigh testimony that conflicted with physical evidence and conflicting statements by witnesses as it decided whether Wilson should face charges."


McCulloch had no duty to present , much less comment on so-called "inconsistent statements"

The article does nothing but regurgitate the Prosecutors viewpoint...hence complete shite.