 |
| Click image to play video |
Certain witnesses who spoke before the grand jury investigating the Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown told obvious lies under oath, St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch said Friday.
“Clearly some were not telling the truth,” he said during an interview on KTRS 550. He added that he's not planning to pursue charges against any lying witnesses.
In his first extensive interview since the grand jury decided not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, McCulloch said he had no regrets about letting grand jury members hear from non-credible witnesses.
“Early on I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything would be presented to the grand jury,” McCulloch said. He added that he would've been criticized no matter his decision.
During the interview, McCulloch referenced a woman who claimed to have seen the shooting.
This “lady clearly wasn't present,” McCulloch said. “She recounted a story right out of the newspaper,” backing up Wilson's version of events.
Okay I am pretty sure that it is unethical to have witnesses provide testimony to a grand jury that you know are lying.
And I KNOW it is against the law to lie to the grand jury.
So why isn't anybody getting prosecuted over this?
I think that the prosecuting attorney should be disbarred and this woman thrown in jail. That to me seems obvious.
And then I would like somebody to call Hannity out for constantly using the ONE witness which supported his inner prejudice and his desire to find Darren Wilson guiltless.
For as long as I can remember the subject ever coming up in my life (and we did go over this at home and at school), I was always taught you never lie to police, your never lie to a judge, and you never lie under oath, and that if you do and are found out, the consequences are dire.
ReplyDeleteIf nothing happens to this woman, we are opening making a mockery of our justice system. We may as well just tell kids to lie, lie, lie, to everyone, all the time, because it doesn't make one whit of difference.
How sad is this? Thank God I don't have children because I'd hate to have to try to explain this to them - I can't explain it to myself!
MarvinM
Mockery of the legal system?- start with Holder and Obama.
Delete9:52
DeleteWhy are you proud of displaying your idiocy?
9:52 AM No shit, Sherlock? Why not start with Sean the Bitch Hannity?
Delete"Anonymous9:52 AM
DeleteMockery of the legal system?- start with Holder and Obama."
----------------------------
What a moronic comment. Why would you say something so demonstrably stupid? Holder and President Obama actually respect the constitution and the legal system.
Back to the topic at hand. I notice you are not claiming a problem with McCulloch's contempt for the law.
@9:52 Is your Mom dating a Black man? It chaps your ass, it?
DeleteNot to mention, Marvin M., that court room witnesses take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And then, if they lie, they're subject to being tried for perjury - for lying under oath. Or do they do things differently in Missouri, which has recently joined my rather long list of states I never want to visit.
DeleteBeaglemom
He's done this before.... just never a case with so much publicity..
ReplyDeleteCan't wait to hear Hannity et al spin this. Alsotoo pretty pissed I didn't know the bar for testifying was going to be this low. Hell, I would have like to have given my version of events. I wasn't there every bit as much as Whitless #40. My imaginary recollection of something I knew nothing about is every bit as good as her's.
ReplyDeleteWe really can't blame Witness #40 for what she did -- she's mentally ill.
ReplyDeleteBut McCulloch should be turned out of office and disbarred.
Well, when a prosecutor doesn't want to indict a ham sandwich, but DOES want to hide behind the grand jury process, then calling every witness that CLAIMED to be at the scene is a brilliant idea. I am astounded the McColloch could find only one such nut case "witness". Maybe he feared someone in the media might notice if he put on a whole parade of them. He's stupid but not that stupid.
ReplyDeleteThere were a few more nut case witnesses, some for Wilson and some for Brown. See my link to a CNN story below.
DeleteThis guy should loose his license to practice law -- and, not only in the State of Missouri, but all over the US, every single state. What is the point of swearing to tell the truth if you aren't going to do it, and won't be charged for lying? How far we have sunk in this once great country.
ReplyDeleteIf they were going to start prosecuting witnesses for lying to that grand jury, 95% of the witnesses would be prosecuted, starting with Dorian Johnson. Too bad a cop doing his job has had his career ruined by money grubbing race baiters like Uncle Al. Can't wait for the 4 million dollar tax cheat to heart attack or stroke out and drop over dead. Couldn't happen soon enough. Hopefully he will take Jesse with him. Still waiting for the prosecution of the stepfather for inciting the riots. Still waiting for arrests of the rioters that thieved and burned out buildings. Still waiting on the arrest of Dorian Johnson for participation in a robbery and lying to police. And when is the constantly hair color changing momma going to trial for grand theft and assault on Brown's grandmother?
ReplyDeleteRun along dope.
Delete9:51 AM Are you at a KKK Cross Burning? You could not be more blatantly bigoted. You want grand juries to only believe White witnesses? Look into the mirror at the poster child for bigots. If you had the chance, you would claim that you were at the Brown shooting.
DeleteHas Michael Brown's stepdad learned how to pull up his pants yet?
Deleteway to go 'protestors':
Deletehttp://www.stltoday.com/gallery/news/multimedia/scenes-from-looting-in-ferguson/collection_be35e468-a67c-5b30-84ba-50a7384dfd62.html#0
Run along and find a sheet and hood to hide behind. Wilson is a criminal and nothing more than a thug and a murderer hiding behind a badge. He wasn't doing his job at all.
DeleteAnon @ 9:51 AM, you're wrong. Witness #40 is provably a liar, and 3 or 4 other witnesses interviewed also proved to be liars.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justice/ferguson-witnesses-credibility/
But the vast majority of the witnesses interviewed -- there were 62 total -- had stories which were obviously close to what little audio or video corroboration was available, thus, were as truthful as eyewitnesses can be.
That includes 95% of Dorian Johnson's testimony.
10:23 You should be asking that about Bristol Palin, Troll.
DeleteI think charges for perjury should be brought, but McCollough did the eight thing in bringing every witness before the grand jury. The point of a grand jury is to decide if there is enough evidence to bring the case to trial with a reasonable chance of conviction- ergo if charges should be pursued at that time.
ReplyDeleteWhen/if new evidence is found, another grand jury can be convened. This prevents the double jeopardy clause from being violated while ensuring as many offenders as possible are acvurately convicted.
Either trust the legal system or revert to anarchy- it's not 100%, but the system itself is designed to keep the innocent out of jail, not put the guilty in. Which should also translate over to Gitmo, but "conveniently" doesn't- being for one and against the other is surely a tad hypocritical.
"Better 100 guilty men walk free than a single innocent man be punished" -Benjamin Franklin, probably.
Double jeopardy has nothing to do with grand juries. If you have been acquitted in a trial, double jeopardy would apply.
DeleteAll a grand jury does is determine (supposedly) if there is enough evidence to bring someone to trial.
Wilson was not acquitted or convicted of a crime. He has never been brought to trial. There is no issue of double jeopardy even if a grand jury is re-convened.
But, when a "witness" is not a witness, that person should not be able to come before a grand jury and talk about what that person never saw.
DeleteBeaglemom
When I heard that McCulloch's father was a white cop killed by a black man, I was STUNNED he was allowed to pursue this case.
ReplyDeleteI just have one question for everyone- if it had been one of the black witnesses who'd been proven to be nowhere near the crime scene that day...do you think he would just let it go as he is with lily white witness 40?
That's what I thought.
The behavior of this prosecutor is unreal. Why is it that we have prosecutors who will lie, withhold evidence during discovery to cripple the defense, and do literally anything to get a conviction even if they don't have proof the person is guilty...or as in this case, act AS a defense attorney for the would be defendant and take careful, detailed, calculated steps to make SURE he won't be indicted? Seriously...WHAT the fuck?
Gryphen, if you don't Twitter-follow Shaun King on matters of Ferguson, police killings of unarmed/unresisting/juvenile blacks, you should.
ReplyDeleteHe tweeted this yesterday:
Shaun King @ShaunKing
24 hours ago
I am told Bob McCulloch CANNOT charge witness #40 with perjury because he would, by default, implicate himself since he knew she was lying.
He's been cross-posting some of his ongoing investigative journalism on Daily Kos. Over the past few months he's done some great work on the Michael Brown murder.
Google subornation of perjury for the explanation on why McCullough will do nothing.
DeleteAs far as the act of subornation, the fact that the FBI had apparently discredited some of the witness testimony before McCulloch and his crew put them on for the grand jury would go to both knowledge and intent.
DeleteAs far as McCulloch's subordinate doing this:
"This is how the Grand Jury arrived at their verdict. Early on in the proceedings, Assistant District Attorney Alizadeh handed out copies of a law that was ruled unconstitutional in 1985."
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/how-robert-mcculloch-hoodwinked-ferguson
There might be a charge or two for that.
Unless they are too white to charge, too white to jail.
You can be sure that unless the feds step in Missouri will continue to do things like they have always done.
Witness #30 should be enough to end McCullough's career and get him disbarred and kicked out of office but I hope the mainstream media will pay some attention to his handling of Witness #10.
ReplyDeleteIn McCullough's grand jury verdict presser, he discredited many witnesses as having changed their stories. He praised one, Witness #10, as credible.
" Lawrence O’Donnell followed up by poking holes in the testimony of the only witness McCulloch specifically quoted in his press conference, imbued with all the trust he scornfully denied to everyone else."
McCullough ignored the inconsistencies of Witness #10, probably because his testimony supported Officer Wilson.
Witnesses #30 and #10, the public disparaging of witnesses whose testimony was contrary to that of Darren Wilson, and allowing Wilson to testify and lie to the grand jury should be, at minimum, the end of McCullough's career.
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/26/everything_the_darren_wilson_grand_jury_got_wrong_the_lies_and_mistruths_that_let_michael_browns_killer_off_the_hook/
Has your dad polished his skin head and washed his sheets yet?
ReplyDeleteSarah Palin's 'Amazing America' will have an interesting co-star this season: a known porn star (Tara Conner) who is also known for her drug use (cocaine, heroin, crystal meth). Was this starlet selection intentional or accidental? Remember what Sarah says: "There are no coincidences!" http://malialitman.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/sarah-palin-to-appear-with-porn-star-on-amazing-america-no-joke/
ReplyDeleteCan't wait for the CPers to learn about this one!!
Anonymous11:05 AM:
DeleteSarah knows that 'sex sells' and this will always be her agenda. Brings in the money, dontcha know.
Watch/read this report:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.democracynow.org/2014/12/17/was_key_grand_jury_witness_in
No lawyer is allowed to present someone to the jury who will be telling lies. That includes prosecutors, too. To throw a bunch of garbage at the jury was an attempt to deceive them, in the same way that an assistant also presented a law that was out of date-- and the truth of it was revealed in a half-hearted way on the last day of the grand jury. The entire case stinks, and should be thrown out.
ReplyDeleteI've been reading a lot of stories about this newest revelation, and it's infuriating to me that they are still calling this person a 'witness'. SHE IS NOT A WITNESS!!!!!
ReplyDeleteA witness is someone who was in a specific place at a specific time and saw a specific event. She saw nothing because SHE WAS NOT THERE!!!
Can everyone pleeeease start calling her something else besides 'witness'??? 'Liar #40' perhaps???
Just what I thought. I wonder where he went to law school.
ReplyDeleteBeaglemom
She's quite a useful tool, wonder how much she got paid for her "testimony"? And what Fox promised her if she lied? I'm sure they can slip her a show of her own after the plastic surgery heals.
ReplyDelete“Early on I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything would be presented to the grand jury,” McCulloch said.
ReplyDeleteWell shit I wish I'd known that, I would have brought my version of the story to the Grand Jury too! Why wasn't this advertised so we could all have gotten in on the fun!!
I believe the DOJ is on this so let's just hope they do their job.
DeleteDidn't the Republicans impeach a president BECAUSE he lied before a grand jury? I await Hannity's explosion of outrage. After all, what kind if example is that prosecutor setting for the children?
Delete