What's new
By:

Darren Wilson's key witness lied about everything

HighlandHomie said:
In the least surprising news of all time - the witness the racist disgusting pieces of **** in Missouri chose to give the most credence to in order to protect their dumb murdering racist Darren Wilson is mentally ill, a criminal and known racist: https://gawker.com/darren-wilsons-key-witness-was-bipolar-racist-liar-1671681384?

Darren Wilson didn't have a scratch on him. He deserves to die that piece of ****.
Click to expand...

Have the deliberations been made public? Do you have a clue what the grand jury gave the most credence to? Of course not. You don't have a clue about ****.
 
This is the report that is linked to within the site HH linked to:

https://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236

From The Smoking Gun's report:

"Since the identities of grand jurors--as well as details of their deliberations--remain secret, there is no way of knowing what impact McElroy’s testimony had on members of the panel, which subsequently declined to vote indictments against Wilson."
 
nightmare3983 said:
This is the report that is linked to within the site HH linked to:

https://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236

From The Smoking Gun's report:

"Since the identities of grand jurors--as well as details of their deliberations--remain secret, there is no way of knowing what impact McElroy’s testimony had on members of the panel, which subsequently declined to vote indictments against Wilson."
Click to expand...

We do know this witnesses testimony was presented as having the same weight as any other testimony, and the notion that it had no effect would be laughable.
 
One Brow said:
We do know this witnesses testimony was presented as having the same weight as any other testimony, and the notion that it had no effect would be laughable.
Click to expand...

True, but the notion that HighlandHomie or anyone else has a clue as to how much of an impact the testimony of this (or any) witness had without being privy to what happened during deliberations is equally laughable.
 
During his ridiculously long-winded speech, the DA implied that the physical evidence held a lot of weight. Of course, not having been present during the grand jury deliberations, I'm not going to make baseless assumptions.
 
I'm not sure how Gawker determined she was a "key" witness when it seems like the prosecutors did everything they could to discredit her.

https://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/12/16/witness_40_michael_brown_football_player_witness_unreliability_history_of.html

the Smoking Gun doesn't mention that, in those same grand jury records, a prosecutor says (in front of jurors) that McElroy had admitted she may have gotten details of her earlier testimony off the Internet, points out that her journal entry from the morning before Brown's death is suspiciously detailed, and asks McElroy directly whether she may have made up or "dreamed" the events that she's testifying about. Another prosecutor tells McElroy she believes McElroy is "confused" about her own account and grills her about her animosity towards blacks and her use of racial slurs.
Click to expand...

Of course, the next question is if the prosecutor knew her story was probably a lie and she was bat **** crazy, then why was she called to testify at all?
 
candrew said:
Of course, the next question is if the prosecutor knew her story was probably a lie and she was bat **** crazy, then why was she called to testify at all?
Click to expand...

McCulloch called her in to testify twice despite the FBI already proving she wasn't there. McCulloch failed Brown, his family, the community and the nation. Even if Wilson had been indicted, it wouldn't bring Brown back to life or fix the racist infrastructure nationally/locally, so it's almost better these corrupt pieces of **** are now being exposed world wide.
 
candrew said:
I'm not sure how Gawker determined she was a "key" witness when it seems like the prosecutors did everything they could to discredit her.

https://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/12/16/witness_40_michael_brown_football_player_witness_unreliability_history_of.html



Of course, the next question is if the prosecutor knew her story was probably a lie and she was bat **** crazy, then why was she called to testify at all?
Click to expand...

If the prosecutor is trying to sow confusion in order to get no indictment, that makes a lot of sense.
 
One Brow said:
If the prosecutor is trying to sow confusion in order to get no indictment, that makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

The most cynical part of me thinks bias confirmation - doesn't matter how incredible a person sounds as long as one person publicly states what another person is privately thinking; they take that as validation. Or as I once saw it perfectly encapsulated:

I don't want facts. I want to imagine that things happened in a way that is most convenient to my prejudices and I want someone to provide me with some supporting commentary so I can feel justified.
Click to expand...
 
Some of you guys are quick to believe the cops when they discredited the woman's report from years ago, but only because it helps your argument.

**** the police! (unless what they're doing benefits me)
 
E.J. Wells said:
Some of you guys are quick to believe the cops when they discredited the woman's report from years ago, but only because it helps your argument.

**** the police! (unless what they're doing benefits me)
Click to expand...

I'm more inclined to believe people when they report things that go against their personal/professional interests than when they report things that support them.
 
One Brow said:
I'm more inclined to believe people when they report things that go against their personal/professional interests than when they report things that support them.
Click to expand...

Me too, but it doesn't change the fact that the instant the police say something that you agree with, it has to be true. Other than that, they are lying, worthless, racist pigs.

Here's another idea: this idiot lady really did do what she said she did (reporting the incident from a few years ago), and the police totally dropped the ball with her information. They easily dismissed it/covered it up years ago because back then, it wasn't national news. Suddenly it is, so the coverup got a lot hairier. If these cops are as crooked as you think (covering for Brown's shooter, closet racists, liars, etc.) then is this really a stretch? I think not.
 
E.J. Wells said:
Me too, but it doesn't change the fact that the instant the police say something that you agree with, it has to be true. Other than that, they are lying, worthless, racist pigs.
Click to expand...

I'll acknowledge being as culpable to confirmation bias as anyone else.

Here, regarding this particular witness, discrediting her story tends to undermine Wilson's position, so the police acted against their normal inclination in discrediting her. So, both conditions (confirmation bias and acting against self-interest) apply. If you feel that only the former is controlling, there is no evidence I can use to disprove it.

E.J. Wells said:
Here's another idea: this idiot lady really did do what she said she did (reporting the incident from a few years ago), and the police totally dropped the ball with her information. They easily dismissed it/covered it up years ago because back then, it wasn't national news. Suddenly it is, so the coverup got a lot hairier. If these cops are as crooked as you think (covering for Brown's shooter, closet racists, liars, etc.) then is this really a stretch? I think not.
Click to expand...

When have I ever said that the police, generally, were crooked (as in, deliberately choosing to break the law and violate constitutional rights)? I don't even think Wilson is crooked in that particular way. I think Wilson's testimony can not be trusted for a variety of reasons, but not because he likes shooting people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top