Michael Brown Case

[Terralthra]

Uhh, yes? Did you read the link J posted?

Here's another.

As bad as this story has become now that we know that the Medical Examiner never took any pictures at the scene because he couldn't be bothered to replace the batteries in his camera, that the were never any fingerprint test done on Officer Darren Wilson's weapon, that Wilson's story changed from the time he talked to investigators to when he spoke to the Grand Jury and he was never cross-examined on that fact...

We now know the St. Louis Prosecutor Bob McCulloch was fully aware that "Witness #40" (who has been revealed to be Sandra McElroy), not only posted racist rants on her facebook and in her personal journal, not only was an open supporter of Darren Wilson and posted pictures of Michael Brown's dead body with the caption "Justice Served", but that Mr. McCulloch knew this witness was lying about even being at the scene of the shooting yet he still put her up on the stand for the Grand Jury anyway.

McCulloch explained that he decided to let “anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything” testify before the jurors, out of the belief that he would be criticized no matter how he approached the possible prosecution of Officer Darren Wilson, who Brown following a confrontation this past August.
He also admitted that the testimony of “Witness 40,” identified in a grand jury transcript as 45-year-old Sandra McElroy, lacked credibility.

“This lady clearly wasn’t present when this occurred,” McCulloch said. “She recounted a statement that was right out of the newspaper about Wilson’s actions, and right down the line with Wilson’s actions. Even though I’m sure she was nowhere near the place.”

Why exactly would a prosecutor let people that he believes are lying testify before a Grand Jury - particularly when that witness just happens to be one of the couple that matches the story claimed by Officer Wilson.
So when people are sure that "no reasonable people" could believe that the Grand Jury made a wrongful decision, it's revelations like this that make it clear exactly why people have little confidence in this Grand Juries results and the validity of their decision.

[Gaidin]

How the hell do Grand Juries work in St. Louis anyway? Because aren't there places where they can call their own witnesses?

[Simon_Jester]

Uhh, yes? Did you read the link J posted?

In all honesty I simply overlooked the link the first time I read the post, and I apologize for the inconvenience; I saw it now.

McCulloch explained that he decided to let “anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything” testify before the jurors, out of the belief that he would be criticized no matter how he approached the possible prosecution of Officer Darren Wilson, who Brown following a confrontation this past August.
He also admitted that the testimony of “Witness 40,” identified in a grand jury transcript as 45-year-old Sandra McElroy, lacked credibility.

I also recall other 'witnesses' with all manner of contradictory stories being listed as well, and who only saw tiny parts (or no parts) of the incident. Which is no surprise if the prosecutor had basically given up trying to do his job and said "fine, whoever wants to testify can testify."

[Thanas]

If that were the case then he would not have played hardball with those not backing up the police but softball with the shooter.

[cadbrowser]

There is a new YouTube Video going around apparently showing Michael Brown roughing up an elderly man.

[Thanas]

So what?

[Flagg]

So what?

Clearly he's not a man, but a wild monkey and should be put down. (At video not Thanas)

[Agent Fisher]

From what I've heard, that isn't Mike Brown. Just like half the pictures of Brown weren't actually Brown.

[cadbrowser]

So what?

I just thought it was interesting and important to provide the latest info/intel/gossip. Am I wrong for thinking that way?

So what?

Clearly he's not a man, but a wild monkey and should be put down. (At video not Thanas)

I certainly don't agree with this knee-jerk reaction to the video; or calling the perp a wild monkey (derogatory racist slang is not my thing). Normally, you don't get put down as punishment for assault & battery.

My whole point is that this video provides (assuming it IS Michael Brown here) evidence contrary to those that have called him The Gentle Giant. He was a thug, and one that deserved to be put in prison.

[cadbrowser]

From what I've heard, that isn't Mike Brown. Just like half the pictures of Brown weren't actually Brown.

If it isn't Mike Brown then a mod can remove the video and related comments to the HOS if necessary. Any way to tell for sure?

[Metahive]

O Thanas, don't you know the "HE WAS NO ANGEL"-bullfuckery, the thinking that victims of injustice for whatever reason must have been complete saints or otherwise they somehow contributed to their violent demise? Whenever a PoC falls prey to racist bullshit, this will be thrown out without fail.

[Borgholio]

How about some real news regarding the case?

Ferguson grand juror sues to remove gag order - Says McCulloch misrepresented the Grand Jury decision

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /21284797/

A juror who sat on the panel that reviewed evidence in the August shooting death of Michael Brown has filed suit, seeking to remove a lifetime gag order that prevents members of the grand jury from speaking publicly about the case.

The federal suit filed on Monday names St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch as the defendant, because he would be the person to bring charges against a grand jury member who violated the gag order. The plaintiff, who is being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, is identified in the lawsuit as "Grand Juror Doe."

The grand juror would like to talk about the experience of serving on the panel, which declined to indict former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for the death of Brown, to contribute to the ongoing national conversation on race relations, according to the ACLU.

It is a crime, however, for members of a grand jury to speak out without permission from a court.

"The Supreme Court has said that grand jury secrecy must be weighed against the juror's First Amendment rights on a case-by-case basis," Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri, said in a statement. "The rules of secrecy must yield because this is a highly unusual circumstance. The First Amendment prevents the state from imposing a lifetime gag order in cases where the prosecuting attorney has purported to be transparent."

McCulloch announced in November that the jury would not indict Wilson, who shot the unarmed Brown, 18, at least six times after a confrontation in the St. Louis suburb on Aug. 9.

Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, faced criticism for declining to replace McCulloch, whose police officer father was fatally shot in the line of duty, with a special prosecutor to oversee the case. Some activists have also charged that McCulloch presented evidence in a way to ensure that the jury would not return an indictment.

The case spurred nationwide protests, and after the verdict was announced dozens of businesses in Ferguson were burned and looted by rioters.

Edward Magee, a spokesman for McCulloch, said that the prosecutor had not yet been served with the lawsuit and had no comment. McCulloch will have 21 days to file a formal response with the court.

In the suit, the juror contends that "the investigation of Wilson had a stronger focus on the victim (Brown) than in other cases presented to the grand jury." The juror also states in the lawsuit that explanation of the law was made in a "muddled and untimely manner" compared with other cases that were presented to the grand jurors, who began their service in May.

"In Plaintiff's view, the current information available about the grand jurors' views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges," according to the lawsuit. "Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors' view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with Plaintiff's own."

Under Missouri law, it is a misdemeanor for grand jury members to disclose evidence or information about witnesses who appear before them.

James Cohen, an associate professor at Fordham University School of Law, said the Missouri statute was designed to reflect the typical circumstance, where grand jury proceedings are held secretly. But in this case, the prosecutor's office spoke extensively about the process and published transcripts and other evidence presented to the panel.

"This is a grand juror who wants to say some things that are in contrast to how McCulloch represented the process," Cohen said. "It's going to be very hard—I'm not going to say impossible—for a judge to say credibly we're not going to let you do this."

Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the ACLU of Missouri, said the grand juror, if allowed to speak, could help state lawmakers as they review suggested legislation that has been proposed in the aftermath of Brown's death.

"Currently our elected officials have only one side of the story," Mittman said. "They have the government's view and the Constitution doesn't permit that. In this case, we have a grand juror who respects the grand jury process and has said I have information that is important and that legislators need to know, that can inform the public about these important public policy questions."

[Elheru Aran]

Even if Michael Brown was a "thug", that doesn't make the shooting right. Even if he was no saint, he did not deserve to die for the comparatively minor things he did. The level of force that was used on him was disproportionate and uncalled for.

[Kon_El]

Even if Michael Brown was a "thug", that doesn't make the shooting right. Even if he was no saint, he did not deserve to die for the comparatively minor things he did. The level of force that was used on him was disproportionate and uncalled for.

Whether or not the shooting was justified is dependent on which story of how it happened you believe. Him being a "thug" or a "gentle giant" carries a lot of weight in that decision.

[Grumman]

Even if Michael Brown was a "thug", that doesn't make the shooting right. Even if he was no saint, he did not deserve to die for the comparatively minor things he did. The level of force that was used on him was disproportionate and uncalled for.

Bullshit. If you assault a cop and try to steal his gun, deadly force is justified.

[aerius]

So what?

Exactly. It does not matter. Doesn't matter if Brown sets puppies on fire, clubs kittens with a golf club, and feeds babies feet first through a wood chipper, it has no relevance to the case at hand. This case is about what happened immediately before, during, and after the incident in which Brown was shot & killed by Wilson. That's it. End of story. Everything else is superfluous to the case.

As I said earlier, it's a travesty of justice that this case did not go to trial. The physical evidence, that is the wounds & injuries documented in the autopsy report do not support Wilson's version of events. How they failed to get an indictment out of that is fucking unbelievable.

[Terralthra]

It's completely believable: prosecutorial misconduct, obstruction of justice, suborning perjury.

[Patroklos]

So what?

Exactly. It does not matter. Doesn't matter if Brown sets puppies on fire, clubs kittens with a golf club, and feeds babies feet first through a wood chipper, it has no relevance to the case at hand. This case is about what happened immediately before, during, and after the incident in which Brown was shot & killed by Wilson. That's it. End of story. Everything else is superfluous to the case.

As I said earlier, it's a travesty of justice that this case did not go to trial. The physical evidence, that is the wounds & injuries documented in the autopsy report do not support Wilson's version of events. How they failed to get an indictment out of that is fucking unbelievable.

The fact is it should never have gone to a grand jury in the first place because the prosecutor knew all evidence pointed to Wilson being in the clear and every thinking person exposed to the evidence before and after knows this to be the case.

There was a "show trial" already, it was the grand jury that had no business being called in the first place. That was the miscarriage or justice.

[Edi]

So what?

Exactly. It does not matter. Doesn't matter if Brown sets puppies on fire, clubs kittens with a golf club, and feeds babies feet first through a wood chipper, it has no relevance to the case at hand. This case is about what happened immediately before, during, and after the incident in which Brown was shot & killed by Wilson. That's it. End of story. Everything else is superfluous to the case.

As I said earlier, it's a travesty of justice that this case did not go to trial. The physical evidence, that is the wounds & injuries documented in the autopsy report do not support Wilson's version of events. How they failed to get an indictment out of that is fucking unbelievable.

The fact is it should never have gone to a grand jury in the first place because the prosecutor knew all evidence pointed to Wilson being in the clear and every thinking person exposed to the evidence before and after knows this to be the case.

There was a "show trial" already, it was the grand jury that had no business being called in the first place. That was the miscarriage or justice.

No. That's outright bullshit. There is sufficient evidence of prosecutorial favoritism and misconduct that McCullough himself should stand trial to determine if he should be thrown out of office and into jail. An indictment by a grand jury simply means that a case will go to a full trial where actual guilt and innocence will be determined. Such an indictment is not a conviction, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.

I and others have been saying all along that the grand jury process was rigged by the prosecutor, but every time there's someone like you to handwave away every concern because they question your preordained conclusions. There was no possibility at all of any foul play on any level and anyone who even raises that question is "inciting a race war against white people", which is what you hear instantly from the wingnut right. Do you subscribe to that same bullshit?

[Patroklos]

No. That's outright bullshit. There is sufficient evidence of prosecutorial favoritism and misconduct that McCullough himself should stand trial to determine if he should be thrown out of office and into jail. An indictment by a grand jury simply means that a case will go to a full trial where actual guilt and innocence will be determined. Such an indictment is not a conviction, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.

There is going to be prosecutorial favoritism when you FORCE one to hold a grand jury they don't think is warranted. That's also a miscarriage of justice against the accused when you hand wave a prosecutors preference to appease the mob. Perhaps not legally, I don't know the statutes, but certainly morally.

I said nothing about a grand jury declaring guilt or innocence so save your strawman rounds. Quote me saying otherwise. Wilson is innocent because that's what you are when you haven't been convicted of anything, not because of what some grand jury said one way of the other.

The grand jury stood in for a show trial because that's all the mob could get, note I put it in quotations to make that clear. Even then the obvious result based on the evidence was obvious. Shocker. It is a miscarriage of justice to knowingly bring frivolous and false charges to a grand jury and certainly a civil rights violation against the innocent accused.

So yeah the prosecutor did engage in misconduct. Specifically he didn't tell you and the mob to screw off with your frivolous conspiratorial ramblings and leave this innocent person alone.

I and others have been saying all along that the grand jury process was rigged by the prosecutor, but every time there's someone like you to handwave away every concern because they question your preordained conclusions. There was no possibility at all of any foul play on any level and anyone who even raises that question is "inciting a race war against white people", which is what you hear instantly from the wingnut right. Do you subscribe to that same bullshit?

Or I have a different opinion than you. QUICK, TO THE PRESSES! Please quote me saying anything regarding a race war or retract your statement. There is someone here running on the fumes of emotion and illogical knee jerk reactions, and that would be you.

[Civil War Man]

There is going to be prosecutorial favoritism when you FORCE one to hold a grand jury they don't think is warranted. That's also a miscarriage of justice against the accused when you hand wave a prosecutors preference to appease the mob. Perhaps not legally, I don't know the statutes, but certainly morally.

I said nothing about a grand jury declaring guilt or innocence so save your strawman rounds. Quote me saying otherwise. Wilson is innocent because that's what you are when you haven't been convicted of anything, not because of what some grand jury said one way of the other.

The grand jury stood in for a show trial because that's all the mob could get, note I put it in quotations to make that clear. Even then the obvious result based on the evidence was obvious. Shocker. It is a miscarriage of justice to knowingly bring frivolous and false charges to a grand jury and certainly a civil rights violation against the innocent accused.

So yeah the prosecutor did engage in misconduct. Specifically he didn't tell you and the mob to screw off with your frivolous conspiratorial ramblings and leave this innocent person alone.

So, what? The comfort of the prosecutor now outweighs the right of both the victim and the accused to a trial? McCullough works as a prosecutor for the State of Missouri. His job when addressing a grand jury is to present the State's case against the accused to the best of his ability, regardless of his personal views, so the grand jury can determine whether there's enough evidence to go to trial. If his views prevented him from doing this job, he should have recused himself and let someone else take the case. Instead, so far every legal analysis I have seen of the proceedings say that not only did McCullough not present the State's case to the best of his ability, but he went out of his way to sabotage the proceedings. When discussing McCullough's misconduct, the actual events of the shooting and the findings of the grand jury are irrelevant. His job was to present the State's case. If he had, there would be no case for prosecutorial misconduct even if the grand jury still chose not to indict. Instead, there is evidence that he intentionally did what he could to prevent the case from going to trial, which is prosecutorial misconduct even if the grand jury chose to indict Wilson.

Also, as an aside, Wilson is not innocent. Innocent would mean that he did not kill Brown. No one is contesting the fact that he killed Brown. The purpose of a trial would have been to determine whether there were extenuating circumstances that justified his actions in some way.

[Patroklos]

So, what? The comfort of the prosecutor now outweighs the right of both the victim and the accused to a trial? McCullough works as a prosecutor for the State of Missouri. His job when addressing a grand jury is to present the State's case against the accused to the best of his ability, regardless of his personal views, so the grand jury can determine whether there's enough evidence to go to trial. If his views prevented him from doing this job, he should have recused himself and let someone else take the case. Instead, so far every legal analysis I have seen of the proceedings say that not only did McCullough not present the State's case to the best of his ability, but he went out of his way to sabotage the proceedings. When discussing McCullough's misconduct, the actual events of the shooting and the findings of the grand jury are irrelevant. His job was to present the State's case. If he had, there would be no case for prosecutorial misconduct even if the grand jury still chose not to indict. Instead, there is evidence that he intentionally did what he could to prevent the case from going to trial, which is prosecutorial misconduct even if the grand jury chose to indict Wilson.

His job is firstly to decide whether to take a case to the grand jury in the first place based on its merits. Do you think that's is what happened? That the prosecutor freely and without undue influence called that grand jury? This is where his misconduct occurred. Obviously a grand jury proceeding is going to be odd if there was no basis for it to exist in the first place.

Also, as an aside, Wilson is not innocent. Innocent would mean that he did not kill Brown. No one is contesting the fact that he killed Brown. The purpose of a trial would have been to determine whether there were extenuating circumstances that justified his actions in some way.

Him having killed Brown is simply a fact, innocence or guilt has no part in it. That is not the purpose of a trial, there can be extenuating circumstances justifying his action without one as in fact happened in this case. There are lots of cases involving killing involving or not involving police officers that to not go to trial. The purpose of a trial is to assess guilt if there is a suspicion of a crime. Since there is no suspicion of a crime, there is no trial. Wilson is innocent as default.

[TheHammer]

No. That's outright bullshit. There is sufficient evidence of prosecutorial favoritism and misconduct that McCullough himself should stand trial to determine if he should be thrown out of office and into jail. An indictment by a grand jury simply means that a case will go to a full trial where actual guilt and innocence will be determined. Such an indictment is not a conviction, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.

There is going to be prosecutorial favoritism when you FORCE one to hold a grand jury they don't think is warranted. That's also a miscarriage of justice against the accused when you hand wave a prosecutors preference to appease the mob. Perhaps not legally, I don't know the statutes, but certainly morally.

I said nothing about a grand jury declaring guilt or innocence so save your strawman rounds. Quote me saying otherwise. Wilson is innocent because that's what you are when you haven't been convicted of anything, not because of what some grand jury said one way of the other.

The grand jury stood in for a show trial because that's all the mob could get, note I put it in quotations to make that clear. Even then the obvious result based on the evidence was obvious. Shocker. It is a miscarriage of justice to knowingly bring frivolous and false charges to a grand jury and certainly a civil rights violation against the innocent accused.

So yeah the prosecutor did engage in misconduct. Specifically he didn't tell you and the mob to screw off with your frivolous conspiratorial ramblings and leave this innocent person alone.

There was certainly enough circumstantial evidence in this case given the eye witness testimony to have probable cause. The fundamental flaw was using a local DA who had worked with those same police handle the prosecution. Any prosecutor who was actually prosecuting would have been able to get an indictment. There may not have been enough evidence to ultimately convict, but that's what the trial is for. That's not "appeasement of a mob" that's how the process works. Let the defense attorney pick apart inconsistencies in witness statements, or the physical evidence. And get a prosecutor in there who will do the same to Wilson's witnesses and testimony. That's how we come to some semblance of "the truth" and make our best efforts that justice has been done.

One of the big indicators that things weren't on the up and up was the fact that Wilson testified that the reason he stopped brown was because of the call about the grocery store robbery. And yet in earlier testimony Wilson's supervisor stated that Wilson explicitly told him that he didn't know anything about the robbery. You'd think that would be something a DA who was actually prosecuting would jump all over. Yet Wilson is allowed to testify to that without even being questioned regarding his supervisor's statements. Further, if he is lying about that aspect, how can you therefore taking anything else he had to say at face value?

In addition to the obvious failure I just noted, the DA also failed to ask any tough questions as you'd expect someone actually prosecuting would do. Wilson was allowed to essentially make statements as though they were unquestioned fact. Had Wilson been asked and had he answered some tough questions about his actions, then you could at least feel like they had done their due diligence. Instead we get what is tantamount to a softball interview and you're left thinking the prosecutor willfully half ass'd the whole process in order to shift blame onto the grand jury for failing to indict. That's why the DA in this case should have recused himself and there should have been a special prosecutor working in conjunction with an internal affairs like unit to investigate and actually prosecute.

[Patroklos]

Again, the prosecutor calling a grand jury is not and should not be a forgone conclusion (In MO, other states differ). There is and should be room for differing opinions as to whether a grand jury was justified or not, but when you state that there had to be one and we should have found a prosecutor that believed that utterly and would push this to trial no matter what all you are asking for as a bias in your direction.

The process is not just "bring this to trial so the jury can decide." The process is does the prosecutor think thas an offense took place? Check Yes. Is there enough evidence to bring this to trial successfully? Check Yes. Do I need a Grand Jury to add weight to the indictment or can I proceed without one (in states where its not required)? Check Yes. If the Grand Jury Indicts do I still want to go to trial? Check Yes. Should I plea this out for any number of reasons (he could do this at any time actually)? Check No. Go to Trial.

The trial is the last part of the process. Most crimes don't get to that trial.

[Civil War Man]

Him having killed Brown is simply a fact, innocence or guilt has no part in it. That is not the purpose of a trial, there can be extenuating circumstances justifying his action without one as in fact happened in this case. There are lots of cases involving killing involving or not involving police officers that to not go to trial. The purpose of a trial is to assess guilt if there is a suspicion of a crime. Since there is no suspicion of a crime, there is no trial. Wilson is innocent as default.

You do realize that killing someone is actually a crime, right?