Witness 40
 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2047404




No videos that have nothing to do with Mike Brown here sorry.

This will at the very least not make the Brown case go away. This should also help any civil litigation since how do the authorities explain the credibility of this witness when she was a known tainted person.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6356804.html



Supposedly a Prosecuting Attorney who allows a witness whom he or she knows is lying to testify before a grand jury or jury is grounds for sanction.

I wonder how many "witnesses" that might have cut out supporting the alleged robber?

This is a truly pathetic attempt to excuse what is manifestly a deliberate miscarriage of justice. I suppose all that matters is that your former "side" won this one.

But I'll play.

Since the witnesses were all vetted, selected and probably coached by a prosecutor who has an anti-black, pro-cop agenda, (you know about his family history, right?), I'd say none at all.

John

Then you didn't bother to read the article?

Of course I read it.

Tell me, Zeke, why do you suppose the Prosecutor said this:

"Clearly some were not telling the truth,” Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch said in an interview with KTRS radio on Friday. He said he's not planning to file charges against witnesses who lied.

Why do you suppose he doesn't want to do anything to discredit anyone's testimony, Zeke?

He got the outcome that he wanted. If, by bringing perjury charges against a witness or two, he could vindicate his disgraceful performance throughout the Grand Jury proceedings, he'd be all over it. He knows who lied and who those lies helped.

This man should be sharing a cell with Wilson.

John

BULLSHIT.

McCulloch allowed all sorts of incredible testimony (offering differing viewpoints) into the proceedings, per admission, so that weak-minded loons wouldn't later say only the opposition wasn't included.

The Grand Jury heard everything available and came to the CORRECT conclusion.

Cherry picking Witness 40 is lame.

Per whose "admission"?

Sorry, Zeke. The fact is, McCulloch is just as untrustworthy in this matter as Witness 40.

Again, why is he refusing to act on what he himself acknowledges as perjured testimony? Not only has he allowed it into the record but he's allowed it without challenge. Reason? It serves his agenda.

John

I'd have to dig it up but McCulloch recently reported that there was all sorts of testimony -- from both camps -- he found personally less than credible but that ALL statements were turned over to the Grand Jury.

Sum? He filtered nothing.

That the reasonable people of a Grand Jury found one side more truthful than the other is just what occurred.