Posted on 12/14/2014 8:16:16 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
The grand jury in the case of Michael Brown's shooting didn't just face an onslaught of witnesses with conflicting memories of what happened the day white police officer Darren Wilson killed Brown, an unarmed black teenager. It also heard from witnesses who couldn't be believed at all.
Some admitted lying. Others changed their stories under questioning. Prosecutors were so skeptical of one woman's account that they asked whether she might have dreamed about seeing the confrontation in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 9.
Most of the dozens of witnesses who testified likely did their best to describe what they saw, but a review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents shows that untrustworthy testimony came from some witnesses on both sides.
"It's no surprise that some people did not tell the truth in this or any other grand jury," says CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
What is unusual in the Ferguson case is that prosecutors chose to call so many witnesses, including some whose credibility they doubted....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
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.
What did I win? LOL
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.
Even more commonly people see what they expect to see. This is why eye-witness testimony is considered weak and unreliable evidence.
“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?
I didn’t know that they used it anymore, to be honest.
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.
Video from that day shows no sign that her car was there, and the way she claims she drove home is physically impossible, authorities told her.
In later testimony, Witness 40 changed her story about some of what she saw and admitted to having gathered some details from news reports. She also gave a different reason for having allegedly been in Ferguson that day, and shared part of a journal that she claimed to have kept.
On the day of the killing, she posted a comment online saying, "They need to kill the f---ing n-----s. It is like an ape fest," the grand jury documents say. (CNN is redacting the "f" and "n" words, but she used them in full.)
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.
My cynical side suspects that this CNN piece was written primarily to get her testimony out there.
Bad CNN
They forgot to redact the racis word, A_e
Winner winner chicken dinner.
He presented the physical evidence without too much commentary. Then witness statements to the media. Then the witnesses.
He let the case speak for itself.
He could have gone to trial bit the evidence was so weak it’d be a waste of money.
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.
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.