HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Ferguson prosecutor says ...

Sat Dec 20, 2014, 07:57 PM

Ferguson prosecutor says he knew some witnesses were ‘clearly not telling the truth.’ They testified

Source: Washington Post

Ferguson prosecutor says he knew some witnesses were ‘clearly not telling the truth.’ They testified anyway.
By Peter Holley December 20 at 7:00 PM

St. Louis County prosecuting attorney Bob McColluch knowingly placed witnesses who were not telling the truth in front of grand jurors investigating this summer’s police officer-involved shooting death of Michael Brown, according to a radio interview he gave Friday.

After nearly a month of silence following the the grand jury’s decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, McCulloch told St. Louis radio station KTRS 550 AM that some of the witnesses were “clearly not telling the truth,” but were allowed them to testify anyway.

“Early on, I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything was gonna be presented to the grand jury,” McCulloch said, noting that “And I knew that no matter how I handled this, there would be criticism of it. So if I didn’t put those witnesses on, then we’d be discussing now why I didn’t put those witnesses on, even though their statements were not accurate.”

On Monday, the Smoking Gun published a story revealing the identity and troubled history of “Witness 40,” a woman whose elaborate story of witnessing Brown’s death was allegedly taken from newspaper accounts. The woman, who told investigators that she is racist, bi-polar and has raised money for Wilson, approached prosecutors five weeks after the Aug. 9 shooting. In a journal entry that she showed the grand jury, the woman said she had driven through Ferguson at the time of the shooting “so I stop calling Blacks N—— and Start calling them People.”


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/20/ferguson-prosecutor-says-he-knew-some-witnesses-were-clearly-not-telling-the-truth-they-testified-anyway/?tid=hpModule_9d3add6c-8a79-11e2-98d9-3012c1cd8d1e

35 replies, 8401 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ferguson prosecutor says he knew some witnesses were ‘clearly not telling the truth.’ They testified (Original post)
Judi Lynn Dec 2014 OP
Jim__ Dec 2014 #1
Judi Lynn Dec 2014 #3
KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #5
KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #2
bvf Dec 2014 #4
Old Codger Dec 2014 #6
Judi Lynn Dec 2014 #8
davidpdx Dec 2014 #9
Old Codger Dec 2014 #12
davidpdx Dec 2014 #13
Live and Learn Dec 2014 #16
24601 Dec 2014 #20
Old Codger Dec 2014 #21
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #27
24601 Dec 2014 #28
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #29
Name removed Dec 2014 #7
PoliticAverse Dec 2014 #10
Dont call me Shirley Dec 2014 #11
mrdmk Dec 2014 #14
IHateTheGOP Dec 2014 #15
lark Dec 2014 #18
TNNurse Dec 2014 #17
diabeticman Dec 2014 #19
sammy750 Dec 2014 #22
santroy79 Dec 2014 #23
Jackpine Radical Dec 2014 #30
vkkv Dec 2014 #24
hugo_from_TN Dec 2014 #25
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #26
NickB79 Dec 2014 #31
adieu Dec 2014 #32
truebluegreen Dec 2014 #33
Helen Borg Dec 2014 #34
truebluegreen Dec 2014 #35

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Dec 20, 2014, 08:10 PM

1. Didn't McCulloch quote witness #40 when he gave his spiel after the grand jury voted not to indict.

I remember him quoting a grand juror saying something like Brown put his head and charged Wilson like a football player. Wasn't that the testimony of witness #40?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim__ (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 20, 2014, 08:23 PM

3. I think you're right. On MSNBC they showed their show hosts repeating that "charging" quote

over and over and over, sometimes adding dramatic emphasis, pauses, extra words so the Fox audience would "get it" and remember how that criminal, who was shot repeatedly decided to just go for broke and "charge like a football player" right at that poor policeman who only had his police revolver to shoot him some more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim__ (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 20, 2014, 08:26 PM

5. He paraphrased the testimony of an unnamed witness or witnesses. I believe

 

Witness #10 (whose account has similar problems to Witness #40's) also stated that Brown charged Wilson.

I wish to point out that the scumbag McCulloch said that Grand Jurors did not believe the 16 eyewitnesses who testified in one form or another that Brown had raised his hands in surrender or was no longer resisting in any meaningful way, because those witnesses had 'changed their stories.' However - and this is a HUGE HOWEVER - witnesses #40 and #10 also changed their stories numerous times. A gross miscarriage of justice thus occurred in the grand jury rooms of St. Louis County in Clayton; McCulloch conspired to obstruct justice and should be facing federal indictment along with his underlings, ADAs Alizadeh and Whirley.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Dec 20, 2014, 08:18 PM

2. Kicking for more exposure - nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Dec 20, 2014, 08:25 PM

4. WTF?? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Dec 20, 2014, 09:04 PM

6. it is called

 

Suborning perjury, it is unethical and illegal to knowingly allow false testimony.He should be up on that charge, he should lose his license and be charged and tried on it along with malfeasance in not charging those witnesses with perjury ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old Codger (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 20, 2014, 09:58 PM

8. Thank you. Well stated. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old Codger (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 20, 2014, 10:53 PM

9. In theory, but we all know he won't be charged

He's mister bigshot district attorney. The only real consequence he'll face is that the whole thing may hurt his career in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 20, 2014, 11:45 PM

12. We can hope

 

That our so far fairly ineffectual justice department will step up to the plate on this. He has admitted it publicly so he has no real defense and they have no real excuse.

Sadly you are probably right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old Codger (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 21, 2014, 02:23 AM

13. There have been rumors about he and McCaskill possibly both running for governor

because Nixon is term limited. My theory is he tried to play it too safe by making sure there was no indictment so not to piss off the white conservatives and it backfired on him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old Codger (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 21, 2014, 10:04 AM

16. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old Codger (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 21, 2014, 06:44 PM

20. Your understanding is suborning perjury is not accurate. The key element that is missing is the

aspect of convincing someone to lie under oath - or the act of procuring someone to lie under oath. Neither of those are present in the circumstances presented.

You may wish to review the information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subornation_of_perjury

Sometimes a Defense Attorney is faced with a client who insists on taking the stand to lie. In most jurisdictions, the attorney is ethically obligated to withdraw from the case, and failing to do so is a violation of the bar's code of conduct, but does not constitute suborning perjury.

In the Ferguson case, the States Attorney is "the people's" attorney at large and is not the personal attorney of anyone testifying before a grand jury.

When a DA, State's Attorney or US Attorney subpoenas a witness who lies, that attorney has bit suborned perjury - but may be in a position to charge the witness with perjury after the fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 21, 2014, 08:49 PM

21. OK but

 

It seems to me that this part applies somewhat.

In American law and in Scots law the subornation of perjury is the crime of persuading a person to commit perjury — the swearing of a false oath to tell the truth in a legal proceeding, be it spoken or written. The term subornation of perjury further describes the circumstance wherein an attorney at law causes a client to lie under oath, or allows another party to lie under oath.[1][2]

Regardless of his position in that he is the "peoples" attorney he is still allowing someone to lie under oath and has admitted to foreknowledge.. If he isn't guilty of suborning perjury he is at least guilty of a severe violation of a code of ethics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 22, 2014, 12:34 PM

27. Attorneys have an ethical obligation to avoid presenting/allowing to be presented ...

 

any information that he/she knows to be false.

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal/comment_on_rule_3_3.html

Now, it could be argued that "knowing" is different from "strongly suspecting" ... but that would be difficult to argue, with his statement to he knew that some of the witnesses were lying.

That said ... I would love for the family of Michael Brown to file a bar complaint against McCollum, as his statement would be prima facie evidence of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 22, 2014, 06:24 PM

28. In the US, you can pretty much sue anyone for anything. But having a case that isn't immediately

dismissed requires more than a belief that you have been wronged.

Fast forward to a crime family in the Southern District of New York planning to cause trouble the the US Attorney by lying to the Grand Jury.

"I got it all figured out, boss. I'm gonna lie to the grand jury."

"You're gonna what, you moran?"

"I'm gonna lie, boss - and then he will be in big trouble with the Attorney General and the courts, because he's the one who subpoenaed us. He should have known that we are lying scum and would lie to the Grand Jury. Boy, he might even get indicted."

"I'm right, you ARE a friggen MORAN! You are the only one who is going to be indicted."

"But boss, I got it all figured out."

"He ain't your attorney dumbass - and he's in no way, shape or form trying to convince you to lie. And there is no way he can be sure you're going to lie. As soon as you swear to tell truth, he can expect that you will tell the truth or take the fifth. If you don't he can take you down. You're sending your own stupid self to jail - the US Attorney is just expediting your trip."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 22, 2014, 06:57 PM

29. Agreed ... I think ...

 

The "Fast forward" gives drama to what I was trying to explain.

But I was not saying sue (sue whom and for what?) ... I am suggesting filing a Bar complaint, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Dec 20, 2014, 11:30 PM

10. Whatever happened to the rule against 'suborning perjury'? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Dec 20, 2014, 11:37 PM

11. But just to confuse the grand jury a bit more, he thought " What the hay?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Dec 21, 2014, 09:05 AM

14. This so-called prosecutor deserves the big


NO SHIT SHERLOCK

The real truth of the matter is the so-called prosecutor is also part of the problem, he needs to be removed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Dec 21, 2014, 09:50 AM

15. This prosecutor is a joke

 

This prosecutor shows the world that America is not what it claims to be. And that's the saddest part of this whole fiasco. Now, 2 policemen in NYC are dead, and they may have been good ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IHateTheGOP (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 21, 2014, 12:01 PM

18. Don't see anything funny about him.

Knowingly throwing the trial so that the police officer got off is no joke. Allowing the lies, not questioning them, then even relying on what he knew to be lies to get Wilson off is reprehensible and dereliction of duty. He sees his duty as being to "the man", not the people. Willing to abide murder, as long as it's done by cop. Reasons aren't needed for him and his ilk. He should absolutely be removed from office, but that won't happen either.

I hardly recognize this country anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Dec 21, 2014, 10:07 AM

17. This begs the question

What did he know and when did he know it?

And then the answer that it really does not matter when, he is as guilty as Darren Wilson and should lose his job, law license and freedom. He needs to do time, general population time, no country club prison and never be allowed to practice law again since he clearly has no respect for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Dec 21, 2014, 12:38 PM

19. How is this guy still DA? Why the hell has HE not been charged? Can he be disbarred for this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Dec 21, 2014, 08:54 PM

22. The criminal actions of MCColluch has cause this nation lots of pain. He is the reason for all

the marches across this nation. He is to blame for the deaths of any cops because of misconduct with the grand jury. I hope Gov. Nixon has the B*lls to fire this guy. Love to see McColluch behind bars for 20/30 years. DA and prosecutors think they can lie to get a conviction, but sometimes that backfires. Lets make McColluch a lesson in how not to present LIES to the Grand Jury.

This guy is a criminal but walking free as are some killer cops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 22, 2014, 07:14 AM

23. he also allowed all the witnesses

 

that he knew were lying about him being shot in the back.

went both ways

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to santroy79 (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 23, 2014, 01:14 PM

30. It's all chaff.

Throw enough random shit at the GJ & they'll vote No True Bill in their bafflement.

The GJ system is a failure in general, and a deliberately manipulated failure in this specific instance. The usual procedure, flawed as it is, is for the prosecutor to present only the case against the defendant, not "both sides" (or whatever McCulloch pretends he was doing there).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 22, 2014, 11:58 AM

24. Why is he being prosecuted? Missourans should be getting signatures at the very least!

 


Send this guy to court - to be tried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vkkv (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 22, 2014, 11:59 AM

25. Witnesses claiming an execution style head shot were clearly lying based on forensics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Dec 22, 2014, 12:22 PM

26. The problem is not, so much, that he placed ...

 

witnesses on the stand that he "knew/suspected were lying" (if his "I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything was gonna be presented to the grand jury" (after-thought) explanation is to be accepted; but rather, his treatment of those witnesses. If he challenged the "on his knees, pleading for his life" witness, he should have also challenged "Witness 40."

I would say, the prudent, fair minded prosecutor would not have placed anyone he knew/suspect was not being truthfully on the stand ... But since I don't believe a word of his "I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything was gonna be presented to the grand jury" (after-thought) explanation" ... all I will say is, B.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Tue Dec 23, 2014, 08:24 PM

31. It's clear MANY witnesses lied, based on the forensic records

For example, the ones saying they saw him shot in the back while running away, or shot multiple times while lying on the ground. The forensic evidence clearly shows this was impossible just based on wound channels.

A lot of people should have been weeded out before the grand jury, IMO, on both sides of the spectrum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Tue Dec 23, 2014, 10:32 PM

32. I wonder

 

whether this DA allowed fabricated witness testimony that implicated Darren Wilson as a cold-blooded murderer.

If not, how come he didn't seek that out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Wed Dec 24, 2014, 04:10 PM

33. Can the bar association get involved in this?

 

Since I am sure DoJ and the state will not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 27, 2014, 05:03 AM

34. He should be disbarred

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Helen Borg (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 27, 2014, 10:17 AM

35. I get that.

 

The question is, can or will the bar association take action. Does someone with standing have to make a complaint, what is the procedure, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread