Posted on 12/17/2014 10:06:31 AM PST by TigerClaws
It does, but one thing I’m wondering is why now? I’m pretty sure this sounds like the bipolar witness who eventually admitted she wasn’t near the scene. The GJ disregarded her testimony, because she was proven to be unreliable. I haven’t been keeping up with this in the last few weeks as much as I did when the GJ report was released, but I definitely remember that her testimony was disregarded.
A number of people who post to the Conservative Treehouse were questioning her statement as soon as it was published. I did myself, because, although not much trips my BS meeter, it went off like a banshee on that handwritten “journal” thingie. For one thing, she uses phrases straight from the Treehouse speculation at the time. Don’t remember what else seemed wrong, but there were a number of things clearly “off” about her statement, off to the point that I could rationally peg them down.
OTOH, going on the physical evidence, her statement was probably more accurate in terms of what happened than some of the ones given by actual witnesses. It’s a lie, but it’s one based on the actual facts (memory serves, she also used phrasing from the Black Canseco video taken right after Brown was killed, where one guy in the background gives his version of what happened).
Color me skeptical.
I wouldn't trust the clueless "new media" to collect my garbage under any circumstances...
Interesting Article from American Thinker-
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/the_strange_case_of_ferguson_witness_40.html
Just remember one thing, Folks: “It’s not the facts of the case, it’s the seriousness of the charge”.
Officer Wilson was charged with being white. He was tried, convicted and sentenced in the court of public opinion. The facts about the black thug that assaulted him and tried to get his gun mean nothing: he’s an obvious racist and must therefore die.
This revelation feeds the agenda. Facts mean nothing to a Leftist, only the agenda. Even if this “witness” was disregarded, the meme will now change to be “why was this testimony allowed? It’s plainly a lie, therefore the whole case is a lie, therefore Wilson is a racist and must therefore die.”
The prosecutor is supposed to seek indictments ONLY for cases he thinks he can win. He knew he would not win, yet could not decline to prosecute, so he let the grand jury get him off the hook.
Did I miss something in the story, or shouldn’t the first question asked of this woman be “Why should we believe that you’re Witness 40?”
***The prosecutor is supposed to seek indictments ONLY for cases he thinks he can win. ***
This is true. It happened in a case involving my sister. She was a witness to a crime, but the GJ didn’t return an indictment against another person. It was not seen as a winnable case, because of reasonable doubt. She was upset for a while, but the prosecutor’s office told her that they were bound to not bring forth cases where reasonable doubt prevails, because it’s a waste of taxpayer money and an abuse of the system. It wasn’t a frivolous case, but it wasn’t provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.