Ferguson

[Timsup2nothin]

what conflict?

with Dorian Johnson's version?

Gentle Mike didn't threaten the cop...much

No, with the post you quoted when you posted your preferred interpretation...which was just as good an interpretation.

Shots fired at fleeing target...Brown turned and charged before any shots were fired.

Like I said, an examination of these interpretations at trial sure would have been interesting. Too bad it didn't happen.

 

[JohnRM]

What particular evidence was not brought before the grand jury that you would have liked to have seen admitted? Keep in mind that the subject of an investigation rarely testifies before the grand jury, so if you're leaning solely on not questioning him enough, that just won't do.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What particular evidence was not brought before the grand jury that you would have liked to have seen admitted? Keep in mind that the subject of an investigation rarely testifies before the grand jury, so if you're leaning solely on not questioning him enough, that just won't do.

Pick any piece of evidence. Let's say something that is clearly favorable to Officer Wilson that should never have been presented in an effort to get an indictment in the first place.

At trial, that piece of evidence would be presented by a defense attorney, who would explain how it relates to their case. The prosecution would present alternative interpretations to either minimize the impact of the evidence or perhaps use it to support their own narrative.

Despite all the 'oh the grand jury saw it all so no problem here' spouting, none of the evidence was put through that process. A grand jury proceeding is not intended for that process, and most of the key components in that process, a defense attorney and a judge, are conspicuously absent.

So while you are apparently satisfied purely by the result, the process itself was a sham and a lot of people would like to see someone held accountable for that. Whether the result itself is an absolutely accurate representation of events or a total distortion is actually beside the point.

 

[Commodore]

That's a pretty strong argument!

No it's not, for one simple reason: It states repeatedly that Michael Brown was shot in in the back. That is simply not true according the forensic evidence and the autopsy reports. The autopsy reports showed no entry wounds in Michael Brown's back, nor were the entry wounds on his arm located where one would expect them to be located if he had his hands up as some witnesses claimed.

The prosecutor definitely mishandled this case, but Smote's argument, despite bringing up some valid points, is nullified by ignoring the forensic evidence and claiming Brown was shot in the back repeatedly. Basically, anyone who operates on the assumption that officer Wilson was guilty and some sort of cover-up of that guilt took place warrants no further consideration in this argument regardless of other points they may raise since they have chosen to ignore the evidence.

I've said it before, as well as others in the media: Forensic evidence does not lie. It has no bias, and is developed using scientific processes and analysis. So arguing against the forensic evidence in this case means you are essentially arguing against forensic science itself; and that is just not a defensible position at all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I've said it before, as well as others in the media: Forensic evidence does not lie. It has no bias, and is developed using scientific processes and analysis. So arguing against the forensic evidence in this case means you are essentially arguing against forensic science itself; and that is just not a defensible position at all.

I just wanted to address this.

Forensic evidence does not lie, but forensics experts do. Lie being too strong a word, but bear with me.

At an actual trial this forensic evidence would be presented by some sort of expert, as testimony. That testimony would be lead by an attorney, either the prosecutor or the defense depending on who really wanted the evidence in, and the other side would challenge the interpretations as the testimony went along and further through cross examination. The judge would keep everything orderly between the two attorneys as they fitted the evidence into their clearly conflicting narratives.

To say "I read the report on the internet that was presented to the grand jury and it says so the forensic evidence that doesn't lie supports " is to imply that this evidence was subjected to such a process, when in fact it has not been. It is no more 'courtroom tested' than any other theory, no matter how wacky one theory may appear to be or how 'based on the evidence' another theory may appear to be.

 

[onejayhawk]

I just wanted to address this.

Forensic evidence does not lie, but forensics experts do. Lie being too strong a word, but bear with me.

At an actual trial this forensic evidence would be presented by some sort of expert, as testimony. That testimony would be lead by an attorney, either the prosecutor or the defense depending on who really wanted the evidence in, and the other side would challenge the interpretations as the testimony went along and further through cross examination. The judge would keep everything orderly between the two attorneys as they fitted the evidence into their clearly conflicting narratives.

To say "I read the report on the internet that was presented to the grand jury and it says so the forensic evidence that doesn't lie supports " is to imply that this evidence was subjected to such a process, when in fact it has not been. It is no more 'courtroom tested' than any other theory, no matter how wacky one theory may appear to be or how 'based on the evidence' another theory may appear to be.

What's your mailing address? I have a couple of leftover pie plates you can use for hats.

This horse is dead. Stop urging it on.

J

 

[Berzerker]

No, with the post you quoted when you posted your preferred interpretation...which was just as good an interpretation.

Shots fired at fleeing target...Brown turned and charged before any shots were fired.

Like I said, an examination of these interpretations at trial sure would have been interesting. Too bad it didn't happen.

The GJ examined the evidence and decided probable cause didn't exist, but you'd still want a trial? And you're complaining about the ethics of prosecutors who may have thrown a case to avoid risking the life of an innocent man?

 

[JohnRM]

The GJ examined the evidence and decided probable cause didn't exist, but you'd still want a trial? And you're complaining about the ethics of prosecutors who may have thrown a case to avoid risking the life of an innocent man?

A more troubling development is the credibility of the assistant to the medical examiner. Just how much influence did he have on the results and how much did he handle evidence? That, in my mind, is the only possible wrinkle in all of this. If he could have had an impact on what and how evidence was presented to grand jurors, then I would be more inclined to agree that it needs to be presented to another grand jury. In addition, it calls into question, the credibility of the entire medical examiner's office, if its proven that he is less than qualified or faked documentation.

 

[James Stuart]

The GJ examined the evidence and decided probable cause didn't exist, but you'd still want a trial? And you're complaining about the ethics of prosecutors who may have thrown a case to avoid risking the life of an innocent man?

Are people being deliberately obtuse? It is obvious that the prosecutor, through either incompetence or, more likely, corruption, threw the case by showing the grand jury things that it should not have seen. The prosecution acted as a joint prosecution and defence before this grand jury, which is not what it is supposed to do. Therefore, the grand jury finding that Wilson didn't have a case to answer is based on a false premise. Ideally, the result should be voided and another prosecutor appointed to take this before another grand jury, but that is unlikely to occur.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Are people being deliberately obtuse? It is obvious that the prosecutor, through either incompetence or, more likely, corruption, threw the case by showing the grand jury things that it should not have seen. The prosecution acted as a joint prosecution and defence before this grand jury, which is not what it is supposed to do. Therefore, the grand jury finding that Wilson didn't have a case to answer is based on a false premise. Ideally, the result should be voided and another prosecutor appointed to take this before another grand jury, but that is unlikely to occur.

Initially, no. Initially they just have no idea how their justice system actually is supposed to work. After a few repetitious explanations of what the purpose of a grand jury hearing is and how that clearly didn't happen...then they become intentionally obtuse rather than deal with having accidentally learned something that makes their previous position unbearably naive.

 

[MobBoss]

Are people being deliberately obtuse? It is obvious that the prosecutor, through either incompetence or, more likely, corruption, threw the case by showing the grand jury things that it should not have seen. The prosecution acted as a joint prosecution and defence before this grand jury, which is not what it is supposed to do. Therefore, the grand jury finding that Wilson didn't have a case to answer is based on a false premise. Ideally, the result should be voided and another prosecutor appointed to take this before another grand jury, but that is unlikely to occur.

So, now the claim is that the grand jury saw too much evidence.

I see.

 

[Smote]

The prosecutor definitely mishandled this case, but Smote's argument, despite bringing up some valid points, is nullified by ignoring the forensic evidence and claiming Brown was shot in the back repeatedly.

Yeah, that was a mistake. I don't think it nullifies the whole argument

 

[Agent327]

Meanwhile the police officer in question, who already was on leave, has resigned his commission. Not the most happy outcome, but one can't say it's an unwise decision, all things considered.

 

[James Stuart]

So, now the claim is that the grand jury saw too much evidence.

I see.

Yes. That is exactly what I am claiming. It is what I have been claiming ever since the grand jury came back with no indictment. As are most other eople arguing against the decision in this thread.

Aren't you a paralegal? You have to know this is not how the grand jury is meant to work.

 

[bhsup]

Meanwhile the police officer in question, who already was on leave, has resigned his commission. Not the most happy outcome, but one can't say it's an unwise decision, all things considered.

Can you blame him? Would you want to work in a city whose population, from day one, intentionally created a false image of a gentle giant who was trying to surrender instead of the truth of a violent large man who tried to kill you? You put your life on the line for them and that's how they repay you? I'd leave too.

 

[Borachio]

Initially, no. Initially they just have no idea how their justice system actually is supposed to work. After a few repetitious explanations of what the purpose of a grand jury hearing is and how that clearly didn't happen...then they become intentionally obtuse rather than deal with having accidentally learned something that makes their previous position unbearably naive.

I think you're right. Isn't it strange?

Nope. I don't think it's strange at all. I find myself doing exactly this type of thing, much more frequently than I ought to feel comfortable with.

 

[JohnRM]

Pick any piece of evidence. Let's say something that is clearly favorable to Officer Wilson that should never have been presented in an effort to get an indictment in the first place.

At trial, that piece of evidence would be presented by a defense attorney, who would explain how it relates to their case. The prosecution would present alternative interpretations to either minimize the impact of the evidence or perhaps use it to support their own narrative.

Despite all the 'oh the grand jury saw it all so no problem here' spouting, none of the evidence was put through that process. A grand jury proceeding is not intended for that process, and most of the key components in that process, a defense attorney and a judge, are conspicuously absent.

So while you are apparently satisfied purely by the result, the process itself was a sham and a lot of people would like to see someone held accountable for that. Whether the result itself is an absolutely accurate representation of events or a total distortion is actually beside the point.

I was under the impression that it was essentially forced by the fact that Darren Wilson had decided to testify on his own behalf (a quite rare occurrence). At that point, the rules change slightly.

But, it would interesting to hear what the exact reasoning was behind it all and exactly what was introduced as a result of Mr. Wilson testifying and what was allowed for reasons other than that. In any event, the bar for indictment is much lower than for conviction and much easier on the conscience.

 

[Flying Pig]

So, now the claim is that the grand jury saw too much evidence.

I see.

I think it would have to be a combination of that (perhaps not in itself a bad thing, but I don't know the system too well) and that it was improperly instructed - ie, it was shown enough evidence to realise that he probably wouldn't have been convicted in court and failed to realise that it was supposed to apply a higher level of doubt than an actual court.

 

[MobBoss]

Yes. That is exactly what I am claiming. It is what I have been claiming ever since the grand jury came back with no indictment. As are most other eople arguing against the decision in this thread.

Aren't you a paralegal? You have to know this is not how the grand jury is meant to work.

I know that the rules for Grand Juries vary from state to state. Yes, I am a Paralegal in Washington State. No, I don't know the specific rules for a Grand Jury in Missouri. Do you? Be honest.

And typically, its a good thing to have more information than less in a situation like this. In Grand Juries I've seen here, the only information that was ever suppressed for a Grand Jury dealt with priors/behavior/drug use of the person shot. All information directly related to the incident itself, pro or con, was usually reviewed.

 

[James Stuart]

I know that the rules for Grand Juries vary from state to state. Yes, I am a Paralegal in Washington State. No, I don't know the specific rules for a Grand Jury in Missouri. Do you? Be honest.

And typically, its a good thing to have more information than less in a situation like this. In Grand Juries I've seen here, the only information that was ever suppressed for a Grand Jury dealt with priors/behavior/drug use of the person shot. All information directly related to the incident itself, pro or con, was usually reviewed.

I do know the specific rules for grand juries in Missouri, actually. I went to the trouble of studying them specifically because I didn't know what I was talking about in this thread. Granted, I would look like an idiot trying to prosecute in one, and I'm sure I'm missing plenty of technicalities - that little gem about the assistant prosecutor giving the grand jury illegal advice, then 'correcting' herself under her breath while jackhammers pounded outside, for example, is something I missed entirely until this thread picked up on it - but I'm not a legal professional. Most of my experience of courtrooms comes from applying for bail and claiming she never told me her age.

That might be the case in Washington, but it does not appear to be the case in Missouri. In Missouri, as apparently in New York and New Jersey, as some posters have indicated, the prosecutions entire job at the grand jury is to push the prosecution case, excluding all factors that the defence might use to exonerate the accused. This case should have been a slam dunk at a Missouri grand jury; the cop admitted to firing his weapon, there were several eyewitnesses who claimed Brown was surrendering, the forensic evidence quite clearly showed that Brown had been shot by Officer Wilson, etc..

Now, I happen to think that Wilson is almost certainly innocent in this. His witness statement seems more than a little self-serving and arse-covering, but so do most of Brown's friends' statements. It seems more likely that Wilson lied in his initial reports, then told the truth - with a little less or extra emphasis here or there, of course - when he realised exactly how much trouble he was in, than the story about Brown being a "gentle giant" gunned down for no reason. I am not absolutely certain that Wilson is innocent, but that's unfortunately the way the cookie crumbles in a case where the accused is only the only reliable witness to the full event.

A trial would probably find Wilson not guilty. Unfortunately, this case is not going to trial because the prosecutor acted improperly in the grand jury, providing exculpatory evidence for Wilson, which is the exact opposite of what he is supposed to do before the grand jury. If he has exculpatory evidence, it is his job to either; not press charges, as the accused is obviously innocent, or; suppress it at the grand jury, but hand it over to the defence to use in a trial. The defence should not be represented at the grand jury. At this one, it was de facto represented by the prosecution.