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
 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
27. My saying McCulloch 'instructed' jury to ignore evidence is my interpretation of his statement
Tue Dec 2, 2014, 05:06 PM
Dec 2014

EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS MUST ALWAYS BE CHALLENGED AND COMPARED AGAINST THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. MANY WITNESSES TO THE SHOOTING OF MICHAEL BROWN MADE STATEMENTS INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER STATEMENTS THEY MADE AND ALSO CONFLICTED WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. SOME WERE COMPLETELY REFUTED BY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. AN EXAMPLE -- BEFORE THE RESULT OF AN AUTOPSY WAS RELEASED, WITNESSES CLAIM THEY SAW OFFICER WILSON STAND OVER MICHAEL BROWN AND FIRE MANY ROUNDS INTO HIS BACK. OTHERS CLAIM THAT OFFICER WILSON SHOT MR. BROWN IN THE BACK AS MR. BROWN WAS RUNNING AWAY. HOWEVER, ONCE THE AUTOPSY FINDINGS WERE RELEASED SHOWING MICHAEL BROWN HAD NOT SUSTAINED ANY WOUNDS TO THE BACK OF HIS BODY, NO ADDITIONAL WITNESSES MADE SUCH A CLAIM. SEVERAL WITNESSES ADJUSTED THEIR STORIES IN THEIR SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS. SOME EVEN ADMITTED THEY DID NOT WITNESS THE EVENT AT ALL BUT MERELY REPEATED WHAT THEY HEARD IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ASSUMED.

FORTUNATELY FOR THE INTEGRITY OF OUR INVESTIGATION, ALMOST ALL OF INITIAL WITNESS INTERVIEWS, INCLUDING THOSE OF OFFICER WILSON WERE RECORDED. THE STATEMENTS IN THE TESTIMONY OF MOST OF THE WITNESSES WERE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY BEFORE THE AUTOPSY RESULTS WERE RELEASED BY THE MEDIA AND BEFORE SEVERAL MEDIA OUTLETS PUBLISH INFORMATION FROM REPORTS THEY RECEIVE FROM A D.C. GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. THE JURORS WERE THEREFORE PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE INFORMATION BEING PUBLIC AND WHAT FOLLOWED IN THE NEWS CYCLE -- THE JURORS WERE ABLE TO ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES, INCLUDING THOSE WITNESSES WHO STATEMENTS AND TESTIMONY REMAINED CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT EVERY INTERVIEW AND WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. MY ASSISTANTS BEGIN PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY ON AUGUST 23 THE EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED IN ORGANIZED AN ORDERLY MANNER.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?322925-1/ferguson-missouri-grand-jury-decision-announcement

Yes, Lawrence has been on this for a week now. NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #1
Cop Tampered With Evidence? billhicks76 Dec 2014 #25
I think his mindset was he wasn't worried for one second about getting in trouble. NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #41
k&r... spanone Dec 2014 #2
and only lawrence is covering this fact & story hopemountain Dec 2014 #3
I read they informed the GJ afterwards that it was no longer constitutional aikoaiko Dec 2014 #4
not really ... GeorgeGist Dec 2014 #14
Lawrence O'Donnell discussed this narrow issue again last night aint_no_life_nowhere Dec 2014 #19
Not according to the transcripts. nt IdaBriggs Dec 2014 #36
Yup. 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #5
I didn't hear about this: Cali_Democrat Dec 2014 #6
That's what McCulloch kept saying during his 1/2 hour "explanation" of the verdict to not indict. 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #12
My recollection is a bit different than that badtoworse Dec 2014 #17
Well, there was at least ONE instruction we know about, as cited in OP 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #20
He was supposed to be looking for an indictment. Instead he was acting as a defense attorney. He als sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #29
+1 Blue_Tires Dec 2014 #40
Precisely. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #43
Only 2 said Brown did not have hands up DMay Dec 2014 #39
DA used witness 10 as the main one to back up the story, yes "story" Wilson told NoJusticeNoPeace Dec 2014 #42
+100 nt 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #45
Who would cross examine in a GJ proceeding? The jurors are allowed to ask questions. badtoworse Dec 2014 #7
It's almost unheard-of to even allow an accused perp to appear on their own behalf before a GJ 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #10
So the idea of cross examination doesn't apply to a GJ? badtoworse Dec 2014 #11
There is no cross examination before a grand jury DefenseLawyer Dec 2014 #13
True ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #23
No. Universally GJ's typically ONLY hear evidence FOR a conviction 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #16
If a prosecutor believes no crime has been committed or that he can't win in court,... badtoworse Dec 2014 #21
Exactly, which is why McCulloch should have recused himself 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #28
There is no defense present at a GJ. They are generally provided information only by the prosecutor sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #30
I'm glad you used the word 'almost'. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #33
Wilson didn't really need to have a "counsel" present during his GJ testimony 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #37
Hell ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #18
Hard to believe those are "prosecutor's" questions, isn't it? nt TrollBuster9090 Dec 2014 #24
My saying McCulloch 'instructed' jury to ignore evidence is my interpretation of his statement 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #27
A law professor's take badtoworse Dec 2014 #31
Do you have a link supporting number 2? JDPriestly Dec 2014 #38
What I have is my very opinionated interpretation of this portion of McCulloch's "explanation" 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #46
Rec! progressoid Dec 2014 #8
It was a lot of things, but it was certainly not a mistake. n/t DefenseLawyer Dec 2014 #9
Rec GeorgeGist Dec 2014 #15
Another Rec! calimary Dec 2014 #35
^^This!^^ BrotherIvan Dec 2014 #26
"Not a bug, but a feature." TrollBuster9090 Dec 2014 #22
One of the mercuryblues Dec 2014 #32
Mistake??? blkmusclmachine Dec 2014 #34
Thanks for this thread. leanforward Dec 2014 #44
"Mistake" implies that it wasn't intentional. baldguy Dec 2014 #47
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Shocking mistake in Darre...»Reply #27