Grand Jury Not Indicting Darren Wilson

[lockedout]

None of that has anything to do with the post that started this tangent..

I said lynch mobs were not as destructive as riots nor are they the same thing. He linked one example that was in fact a riot.

[Wells]

Well it looks like McCulloch knew there were witnesses lying and he put them before the Grand Jury anyway. This comes on the heels of new info painting Witness 40, the strongest corroborator of Wilson's, was probably full of shit.

Buzzfeed also notes that "According to Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, RULE 4-3.3, “A lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.”

[cubby]

Well it looks like McCulloch knew there were witnesses lying and he put them before the Grand Jury anyway. This comes on the heels of new info painting Witness 40, the strongest corroborator of Wilson's, was probably full of shit.

Buzzfeed also notes that "According to Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, RULE 4-3.3, “A lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.”

Do you have any other sources? The one you linked is redacted (which is weird - not saying anything about you, just curious if you have another cite).

[Wells]

Do you have any other sources? The one you linked is redacted (which is weird - not saying anything about you, just curious if you have another cite).

The Buzzfeed article in the second link has more.

[cubby]

The Buzzfeed article in the second link has more.

Gotcha, yeah - much better. Interesting situation - McCulloch skated the rules of professional conduct. It seems like from the interview that he was putting everyone on the stand and let the Grand Jury decide their credibility. He might not have believed their stories, but the interview doesn't say he put someone in front of the GJ that was lying, and that he knew they were lying at the time. Just that they weren't credible.

I know you're going to slam me on this, and it's fine, but the law is based on minutiae, and in this case, the difference between knowing a witness is lying and not believing them is the difference.

[Wells]

Gotcha, yeah - much better. Interesting situation - McCulloch skated the rules of professional conduct. It seems like from the interview that he was putting everyone on the stand and let the Grand Jury decide their credibility. He might not have believed their stories, but the interview doesn't say he put someone in front of the GJ that was lying, and that he knew they were lying at the time. Just that they weren't credible.

I know you're going to slam me on this, and it's fine, but the law is based on minutiae, and in this case, the difference between knowing a witness is lying and not believing them is the difference.

"some that, yes, clearly were not telling the truth. No question about it."
"There were people who came in and, yes, absolutely lied under oath."

He knew he put liars on the stand and presented them as evidence.

[Deleted]

"some that, yes, clearly were not telling the truth. No question about it."
"There were people who came in and, yes, absolutely lied under oath."

He knew he put liars on the stand and presented them as evidence.

Yes, terrible.
Truly terrible.

“Early on I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything would be presented to the grand jury,” McCulloch said. He added that he would've been criticized no matter his decision.

Yeah, but he would have been correct in the other scenario.
this is the problem with grand juries and DA's they are too tied to the police.

[cubby]

"some that, yes, clearly were not telling the truth. No question about it."
"There were people who came in and, yes, absolutely lied under oath."

He knew he put liars on the stand and presented them as evidence.

But that statement isn't linked to what he knew before the GJ testimony. He said some of the people weren't credible, and that he didn't necessarily believe them. But at the same time, he didn't say, yes, I knew they were lying and I put them up there anyway.

[Deleted]

But that statement isn't linked to what he knew before the GJ testimony. He said some of the people weren't credible, and that he didn't necessarily believe them. But at the same time, he didn't say, yes, I knew they were lying and I put them up there anyway.

“Clearly some were not telling the truth,” he said during an interview on KTRS 550. He added that he's not planning to pursue charges against any lying witnesses.

Perjury, that's Per the jury yes?.

[cubby]

Perjury, that's Per the jury yes?.

Lol, exactly!

Look, I realize that I'm on the wrong side of this, ok. But I'm just reading the transcript of the interview - that's it. McColloch doesn't admit to putting people on the stand knowing they were lying. He admits he didn't believe them, and while the rules of conduct allow him to remove those witnesses, he doesn't have to.

[Wells]

But that statement isn't linked to what he knew before the GJ testimony. He said some of the people weren't credible, and that he didn't necessarily believe them. But at the same time, he didn't say, yes, I knew they were lying and I put them up there anyway.

You're seriously stretching.

[cubby]

You're seriously stretching.

I realize that, I do (and I know we disagree a lot of these topics, so I appreciate you going easy on me here). I am stretching, and there is no question that McColloch skated by the Rules of Professional Conduct.

What's even more interesting is that he's stating that those witnesses lied to the FBI, which, if you are a fan of Martha Stewart, know is a federal crime. Wonder if the FBI will pursue . . . .

[lockedout]

"some that, yes, clearly were not telling the truth. No question about it."
"There were people who came in and, yes, absolutely lied under oath."

He knew he put liars on the stand and presented them as evidence.

He's referring to the people claiming to see Wilson shoot Brown execution style face down on the street.

- - - Updated - - -

What's even more interesting is that he's stating that those witnesses lied to the FBI, which, if you are a fan of Martha Stewart, know is a federal crime. Wonder if the FBI will pursue . . . .

I think they are scared to be labeled as racists and the backlash it will cause.

[PACOX]

It's actually much much less destructive. Lynch mobs didn't burn down their own towns, they went after certain individuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood_Massacre

[lockedout]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood_Massacre

It was a riot not a lynch mob. From your link.
"Although the rioting was widely reported around the United States at the time"
Also it was posted a few pages back.

[Deleted]

It was a riot not a lynch mob.

"a mob of several hundred whites formed in reaction and started combing the countryside hunting down black people"

[lockedout]

"a mob of several hundred whites formed in reaction and started combing the countryside hunting down black people"

Which turned into a riot, it's not hard to understand.

[Deleted]

Which turned into a riot, it's not hard to understand.

No really it was literally a lynch mob going for a town of black people.

[lockedout]

No really it was literally a lynch mob going for a town of black people.

I understand and then it literally turned into a riot. " contemporary news reports characterized as a race riot "

[Deleted]

I understand and then it literally turned into a riot. " contemporary news reports characterized as a race riot "

Contemporary news reports were full of shit.

It was a fucking lynch mob they didnt riot.
To call it a race riot is an euphemism and you should be ashamed for trying this bullshit almost 100years later.

Call it Ethnic cleansing or whatever but race riot.
Thats like callign the Reichskristallnacht race riots.

Or gehtto uprising in prague you can call that one race riot next because contemporary german sources might've called it that.