people see what they want to see; not what actually occurred before their eyes.
The prosecutor bent over backwards for these animals and you see where it got him.
Facts can be so racis’....
It also heard from witnesses who couldn’t be believed at all. Some admitted lying. Others changed their stories under questioning.
And there you have it, folks. Especially the losers who keep
“protesting” You’re wrong and always have been.
You white folks down a the Commie News Network really need to lighten up. Like those poor Columbia "law students" who couldn't take their finals because they caught PTSD from watching too much CNN about the grand jury decisions, you're all going to catch PTSD yourselves.
“It’s no surprise that some people did not tell the truth in this or any other grand jury,”
Huh?
Is there no penalty of perjury?
Oh dear, what ever shall we do with all this conflicting testimony. I guess it’s just an irresolvable he said she said and we can never get a clear sense of what happened and who was at fault. /s
Why can’t CNN bring some clarity by having someone simply take a look at how many of the witnesses’ testimonies do and don’t square with the facts?
If reminds me of the Kennedy assassination. When it turned out that the shooter was a Marxist, the left swung into action clouding things up with conspiracy theories. That fog was necessary to protect the narrative that it was right wing “hate” that killed Kennedy.
Same sort of deal here. Now that the facts undercut their narrative, the libs’ new line is that we simply can’t know what really happened.
I read most of the testimony.
Once you got through much of the Uh-huh, and You know what I mean, it was obvious what happened.
The physical evidence didn’t support much of the ‘eye-witness’ testimony.
Many of the witness’ testimony was a compilation of what they saw and what they heard.
This stymied the prosecutors. They kept saying, we want to know the truth. The witnesses kept giving their definition of what the truth was. The prosecutor’s tried to guide them to the truth with, just asking, what did you see? Did you see that.
The command of the spoken language was atrocious. There were a few witnesses who were obviously African-American, who spoke very well, and there were a few of the white witnesses who’s speech made me wonder how they got through life everyday.
The physical evidence sealed it for me. The toxicologist testified that Brown was 3 times the legal limit high on pot than would be legal to operate a motor vehicle.
When asked if pot just makes you mellow, he said, that’s like comparing someone who had a glass of wine with dinner to someone who had a fifth of scotch.
There was a lot of testimony of the difference with alcohol and marijuana, but that was the gist.
Apparently CNN is criticizing the prosecutor for presenting all the witnesses, both trustworthy and untrustworthy witnesses.
I bet CNN would have criticized the prosecution if the prosecution didn't produce all the witnesses.
Damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Unbelievable.
The use of the English language was so tortured that it was not recognizable.
johnson swore that Officer Wilson shot big mike in the back, from a distance of 15 feet or less.
His favorite word of truth was "verbatim" and I have no idea where he heard that word.
I wasted an hour reading the garbage that he lied about, then swore to.
The FBI guy was soft-balling him for the entire interview.
Feral animals is too kind of a description for these perps, but if called what they are, I'd be banned.
Bad CNN
They forgot to redact the racis word, A_e
Many studies have been done on eye witness testimony which shows that people often don’t really see events and participants in a realistic way.
Students were surprised by a supposed gunman who came into the classroom and “killed’ the teacher. Immediately after the staged event many couldn’t identify the killer by race or description of his physical characteristics or clothing.
Mix in racism with someone’s desire to have an outcome that confirms their own prejudices and you have a clear problem with their testimony.
I don’t find it hard to believe at all that those of a “social justice” bent will lie, see what they want to see, or both ...
How many arrests have been made for witnesses caught lying to a grand jury? Is this our “new normal” now? We have a president and half of congress lying to us all the time. What happened to “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.
Support the good guys.
Having read many of the transcripts I appreciate the major limitation in evaluating conflicting testimony is not seeing the body language and facial expressions of the witnesses while they were being questioned. The grand jury members did see the body language and could assess who was lying and who was telling the truth. From prior experiences with them the DA also had a strong impression as to which witnesses were telling the truth and how their testimony would be perceived in open court under cross examination.
I watched some of the Zimmerman trial live and gained great respect for the ability of a good defense attorney to take apart the testimony of prosecution witnesses to the point their testimony is no longer credible. The dissection of Rachel Jeantell was a classic cross examination and likely resulted in the not guilty finding. It is very possible some of the eye witnesses who testified to the grand jury would not be called to testify in open court for this reason. Others might be advised by their own attorneys to refuse the call to testify, knowing their unreliable clients could easily be caught perjuring themselves.
In a fair criminal trial with all parties seeking the truth, and with no other hard evidence than was presented to the grand jury, Officer Wilson would be acquitted. However, in today’s world I’m not sure. If a biased judge allowed the prosecutors to stack the jury, and members of the community intimidated jury members and witnesses, a Wilson trial would be a public spectacle and lynching. Consider also the prospect Wilson might not have access to the best legal talent to argue his defense. He doesn’t have the money to pay for his defense and many excellent defense attorneys
would decline to take the case pro bono due to the highly racially charged atmosphere. Any attorney with political ambition, or a desire to some day be appointed a judge, would run from this case.
I admire the DA for not taking the easy path and manipulating the evidence shown to the grand jury for the purpose of securing an indictment. The DA is a Democrat and killed his prospects for higher political office by not pandering to the crowd. He certainly could tell the hard evidence supported the officer. He also knew a criminal trial would become a national political event that would tear the community apart and exacerbate the racial divide in the entire country. Here is one instance where a public figure consciously harmed himself for the good of the country and to preserve the integrity of a justice system under attack. Contrast him with the political hacks in Florida prosecuting Zimmerman.
There are a still a few good people in public office. We should recognize courage and virtue when we see it on display.
Not sure if i sent you this one or not...
Ooops... sorry, wrong thread.
My bad.