Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Witness # 40

Posted by on Dec. 20, 2014 at 1:36 PM
  • 22 Replies
1 mom liked this

What are your thoughts about the prosecutor admitting he KNEW the witness was lying?

confused

by on Dec. 20, 2014 at 1:36 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
mcdun
by on Dec. 20, 2014 at 1:38 PM
1 mom liked this

I think the prosecutor and witness should be held in contempt of court. I don't know much about these sort of hearings but if it can be done again without the lies I think it should. 

TommieToo
by Silver Member on Dec. 20, 2014 at 3:35 PM

I  am surprised.  

Where are all the people who thought Witness #40 was the only one who knew the truth??

confused

Schauseil
by Silver Member on Dec. 20, 2014 at 3:51 PM
What are we talking about?
TommieToo
by Silver Member on Dec. 20, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Grand Jury testomy that freed Officer Wilson from an indictment.

Quoting Schauseil: What are we talking about?

From MSNBC (just one source of this news)

“There were people who came in and, yes, absolutely lied under oath,” McCulloch told KTRS-AM host McGraw Milhaven. “Some lied to the FBI. Even though they’re not under oath, that’s another potential offense — a federal offense. I thought it was much more important to present the entire picture.”

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.”

Landon2012
by on Dec. 20, 2014 at 5:35 PM
2 moms liked this

Aww come on I thought we were done discussing the brown case. What's done is done get over it already.

littlemum41
by on Dec. 20, 2014 at 6:08 PM
1 mom liked this

 

Quoting Landon2012:

Aww come on I thought we were done discussing the brown case. What's done is done get over it already.

 If the witnesses lied and the trial would have had a totally different outcome if they hadn't lied, then there are many people who would want to reopen the case. I would. TRUTH is what we are after.

I bet if you had a real,honest interest in this you wouldn't say "get over it already". That is harsh.

Landon2012
by on Dec. 20, 2014 at 6:30 PM
4 moms liked this

No I don't have a real honest interest in the case. I believe Wilson was innocent that's it end of story.

Quoting littlemum41:

 

Quoting Landon2012:

Aww come on I thought we were done discussing the brown case. What's done is done get over it already.

 If the witnesses lied and the trial would have had a totally different outcome if they hadn't lied, then there are many people who would want to reopen the case. I would. TRUTH is what we are after.

I bet if you had a real,honest interest in this you wouldn't say "get over it already". That is harsh.


SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Dec. 20, 2014 at 6:34 PM
2 moms liked this

He knew a number of witnesses were lying.

But he presented all the evidence to the Grand Jury, and let them draw their conclusions.

In truth, the prosecutor should not have called a Grand Jury - because he already knew there was insufficient evidence to convict. But he was intimidated by protestors, and thought that convening a Grand Jury would help the public to see the evidence supported Officer Wilson, rather than condemning him.

He probably thought convening a Grand Jury would help the public see why a Zimmerman-esque trial was unjust. But, didn't work. 

Grand Juries and trials where sufficient evidence does not exist, and where evidence in fact tends to exonerate the accused, are not riot prevention strategies. They just piss people off more when you do them, and they still do not get their pound of flesh, because the accused isn't guilty of a crime.

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Dec. 20, 2014 at 6:41 PM
2 moms liked this

What about the other 95% of the lying witnesses, who said Brown didn't steal anything, had his hands up and was running away when shot, was pleading for his life, grabbed Brown through the window of his patrol car? Statements we all know were proven wrong by the evidence?

Do you agree with me that ALL witness lies should be rejected? If so, we are on the same page.


Quoting littlemum41:

 

Quoting Landon2012:

Aww come on I thought we were done discussing the brown case. What's done is done get over it already.

 If the witnesses lied and the trial would have had a totally different outcome if they hadn't lied, then there are many people who would want to reopen the case. I would. TRUTH is what we are after.

I bet if you had a real,honest interest in this you wouldn't say "get over it already". That is harsh.


grandmab125
by Ruby Member on Dec. 20, 2014 at 6:46 PM
2 moms liked this

This was already hashed over several weeks ago in this group.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)