I would not put it beyond the bounds of possibility that she was given leniency on some legal trouble of her own in exchange for saying what the prosecutor wanted the GJ to hear.

that the prosecutor acted as Wilson's defense lawyer.

Simple as that.

her periodic visits to the ghetto to talk to POC. I had no idea that she had completely changed her story, lied about the route she took, and that no one saw her there. And she has insinuated herself into cases before and lied, what a useful idiot. I would not be surprised if they sought out bogus witnesses. The timing with Wilson's leaked testimony is too perfect. Unfuckingbeliveable.

Are they even serious putting this obviously lying witness before a Grand Jury?

What makes me sick is that the GJ would look at this woman and deem to find her credible. That too shows how racial bias works on different levels to prevent justice. This is some sickening shit.

they would have tried to invent her. Maybe they did. She was well known to "authorities."

I take it The Smoking Gun is not satire? For some reason when I opened this I thought TSG was a satire type outlet. Are they a legitimate news outlet? Maybe I am thinking of the Onion, and another like that so if anyone could clear that up for me quick I would appreciate that.

*Also on a sidenote does anyone know how many posts you are required to make before you can start a thread of your own? I had something I wanted to share & ask... Thanks..


Now, on to this witness testimony, and first of all I mean can this really stink any worse? What a shame this entire process has been, especially given the high profile nature of the case, and with what happened in Florida not too long ago. I know a previous unrelated case, and other 'outside incidents" should never influence any other case itself, but there are some steps that can be taken in order to restore some confidence in the public. I believe that is why McCulloch decided to unveil the process being ultra-transparent even though that is not proper procedure in Missouri. This should and could have restored some confidence in the justice system for a certain segment of the population which unfortunately believes things are far worse than they really are. Unfortunately almost everything other than the transparency was a complete, well, joke I guess would be the best way to describe it.

There was another board I was a member of which had a great contributor with deep legal knowledge who I would love to see this, but unfortunately it has turned into a zoo. I am new here so hopefully there are some others here who have been following this closely, and perhaps have some legal background. Now this article here from The Smoking Gun uncovers some potential problems, and even bias with witness #40. This is certainly troubling news, but (and correct me if I am wrong please) I believe witness #10 also corroborated this line of events. Not only that, but I believe there may have been a few others who had as well as I did hear on Hannity along with some others that most of the witness testimony did back up this account. Of course that is Hannity so that would need double checking for sure, and complicating things further some liberal posters (on that other site etc) along with MSNBC have claimed that only one witness (that being witness #10) had given such testimony, while the other "9"? claimed otherwise. This of course couldn't be correct unless The Smoking Gun article is wrong.

So can anyone clear this up? Does this article & these revelations really mean all that much if the other witnesses who were deemed "most credible" also corroborated this line of events?

far he was standing from the events in question). McCulloch cited witnesses who 'changed their stories' as a reason why those who said Brown was surrendering were not believed (and Wilson not indicted). Strangely, McCulloch had nothing whatsoever negative to say about pro-Wilson Witness #10 changing his story.

Witness #10 is a very slim reed upon which to hang corroboration of Wilson's self-serving account.

Seems to me the prosecutor here obstructed justice in the way in which he knowingly used lying witnesses to orchestrate a no indictment result. Can he not be charged with obstruction of justice?

Technically, McColloch could have come out and simply said, "Im not going to prosecute this case. I don't have enough evidence" And there is nothing anyone can do about it. There is no mechanism to force a prosecution. What he did here was basically make a decision that he didn't want to prosecute the case but tanked it intentionally in order to hide behind the grand jury decision. That's not illegal. But may be unethical. It may be something the Bar association should look into.

But again, there is nothing that forces a prosecutor to pursue a case. Even if you did force him to pursue, then what? He can just tank the case at trial and not try very hard to win.

Can this witness be charged with perjury and obstruction? Yes. That can happen. She was under oath and knowingly lied. That's definitely in the cards.

And ultimately the voters can vote out McColloch the next time he's up for re-election.

Seems bizarre to me that a prosecutor can so obviously obstruct justice with no consequence. But I get your point.

As for voters ousting him, that seems unlikely to me, given that I assume elections are managed so that the (racist) white majority get to decide who gets the job.

A bad situation. It would be good if they charged witness 40 with perjury, of course, but can't the same prosecutor just set up another GJ circus to ensure another no indictment result on that?

It appears there is no "within the system" possibility for criminal charges. I guess a mooted civil suit on "wrongful death" is the best legal option. Justice m,ay not be done, but at least the evidence would come out showing that Wilson murdered Michael Brown.

whether its substance is germane to your post here, but thought I would cross-reference for any who are interested.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025902241

Charlemagne
"Convert or I'll chop your fucking head off!"

Pagan
"Okay asshole, okay, chill I'll wear a cross so you don't cut my balls off."

for perjury?

This person wasn't even at the scene, and testified before an empaneled grand jury that she had been a direct eyewitness to the incident!

If this isn't cause for a perjury prosecution, I don't know what is.

This TSG piece is really well done, well researched and pretty solid. It smacks of the kind of investigative journalism we *used* to have in this country.

Good job, Smoking Gun.

Same as "curveball". You find someone who tells you what you need to satisfy the desired outcome.

She should do time for perjury.

is not a just world. But one thing this does is convince those of us who believed it was murder from the beginning that it certainly was.