Ferguson

Pro-Police Witness in Ferguson Grand Jury May Have Been Lying [UPDATED]

|

UPDATE: When I first posted this story, I was unaware that the fact that this witness was very likely lying was not news to the grand jury itself, although that fact (without her name) had been reported a few weeks ago, including at Huffington Post.

I have eliminated the word "key" from the headline, since her testimony, despite its matching Wilson's, was clearly not, unless they were insane, a big part of the grand jury's decision. As posted at the bottom, though, Sean Hannity seemed to love it, and it remained a part of the public's belief in Wilson's innocence.

I regret the negligently quick posting about the Smoking Gun's report, though it was accurate in its particulars. That said, do enjoy this weird tale of the sort of testimony that for whatever reason the Ferguson grand jury was confused with.

Original Post:

Smoking Gun had dug up some fascinatingly damning facts about a witness before the Ferguson grand jury whose alleged eyewitness report matched Officer Darren Wilson's pretty thoroughly.

Turns out "Witness 40" may not have even been on the site of the murder of Michael Brown, and has a record of insinuating herself into cases she has nothing to do with, and has some decidedly curious attitudes about race.

Some details:

"Witness 40″'s testimony about seeing Brown batter Wilson and then rush the cop like a defensive end has repeatedly been pointed to by Wilson supporters as directly corroborative of the officer's version of the August 9 confrontation. The "Witness 40" testimony, as Fox News sees it, is proof that the 18-year-old Brown's killing was justified, and that the Ferguson grand jury got it right.

Smoking Gun insists it has identified this witness as "a 45-year-old St. Louis resident named Sandra McElroy"—and that McElroy herself confirmed this after their initial report appeared. They also insist that available evidence indicates she "was nowhere near Canfield Drive on the Saturday afternoon Brown was shot to death."

The details are all weird and should have raised red flags even to the police—for example, that she didn't contact police until four weeks after the event, after Wilson's version of it was already available for her to corroborate if she wished. She had been making pro-police comments on her Facebook page before then, and not saying she was an eyewitness to the event.

Best Facebook detail:

On September 13, McElroy went on a pro-Wilson Facebook page and posted a graphic that included a photo of Brown lying dead in the street. A type overlay read, "Michael Brown already received justice. So please, stop asking for it." 

And how did Ms. McElroy, who lived 30 miles away from the street where Michael Brown was shot and killed, happen to be there?

When asked what she was doing in Ferguson–which is about 30 miles north of her home–McElroy explained that she was planning to "pop in" on a former high school classmate she had not seen in 26 years. Saddled with an incorrect address and no cell phone, McElroy claimed that she pulled over to smoke a cigarette and seek directions from a black man standing under a tree. In short order, the violent confrontation between Brown and Wilson purportedly played out in front of McElroy…..

McElroy's grand jury testimony came to an abrupt end at 2:30 that afternoon due to obligations of some grand jurors. But before the panel broke for the day, McElroy revealed that, "On August 9th after this happened when I got home, I wrote everything  down on a piece of paper, would that be easier if I brought that in?"

"Sure," answered prosecutor Kathi Alizadeh……

Her reason for allegedly being on the scene changed by her next appearance before the grand jury, though:

Before testifying about the content of her notebook scribblings, McElroy admitted that she had not driven to Ferguson in search of an African-American pal she had last seen in 1988. Instead, McElroy offered a substitute explanation that was, remarkably, an even bigger lie.

McElroy, again under oath, explained to grand jurors that she was something of an amateur urban anthropologist. Every couple of weeks, McElroy testified, she likes to "go into all the African-American neighborhoods." During these weekend sojourns–apparently conducted when her ex has the kids–McElroy said she will "go in and have coffee and I will strike up a conversation with an African-American and I will try to talk to them because I'm trying to understand more."

What follows seems like a bad joke:

The opening entry in McElroy's journal on the day Brown died declared, "Well Im gonna take my random drive to Florisant. Need to understand the Black race better so I stop calling Blacks N*****s [my edit] and Start calling them People." A commendable goal, indeed.

The story also details an earlier police case in which Ms. McElroy tried to insert herself, which resulted in police announcing that  "We have found that [her] story is a complete fabrication."

It almost makes one wonder if Ms. McElroy saw the shooting of Brown by Wilson at all. But the grand jury knew things that rest of us didn't, I suppose.

UPDATE: CNN reported about some of "Witness40″'s clear nuttiness two days ago, without identifying her, and presents other interesting details about some other clearly prevaricating witnesses on both sides who the prosecutor chose for whatever reason to expose his Grand Jury to.

And DailyKos last week pointed out how often Sean Hannity relied on her testimony in his public discussions of why he's sure the grand jury got things right.

NEXT: Survey Finds Teen Pot Smoking Fell This Year Despite the Message Supposedly Sent by Legalization

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A Grand Jury’s refusal to indict does not cause jeopardy to attach. So there is nothing to prevent Wilson from being indicted if more evidence of his guilt comes forth. If the DA fucked this up and Wilson really is guilty, the media needs to do something useful for once and bring these facts to light and get the public to force the DA to reopen the case.

    1. At this point, though, how do you conduct an investigation?

      There has been so much media about this case that all witness testimony has probably been impacted with things people read becoming part of their memory.

      I’ve testified as a witness in one criminal case, and my testimony was utterly wrong – my memory of the timeline was corrupted by conversations with another witness where we both somehow overwrote our memories of when we got the first phone call etc.

      My phone records from AT&T were consistent with what I told the cops the night of the incident, and utterly inconsistent with my memory of the event three months later.

      And I had no reason to lie or to alter my memory. Compare that to the case of witnesses to the shooting who either fear/hate the local cops or want to see them vindicated.

      1. That is a good point. The fact is that unless someone finds a video of the incident, there is likely no evidence to be found short of finding out that every pro Wilson witness was pressured into lying and changing their story, which is not going to happen.

        1. If Brown was charging 10 mph, a jog, he would have covered 51 feet in the 3.5 seconds of shooting instead of the 25 feet he did travel.

    2. We can figure out how fast Brown was moving during the shooting from the physical evidence. Brown moved towards Wilson 25′. The audio of the shots is 6.5 seconds long with a 3 second pause apparently when Brown paused. That means that Brown moved 25′ in 3.5 seconds. That means that Brown was moving at 4.8 mph, hardly a charge, more like a brisk walk. Try it yourself. So was Brown charging “full speed”, head down as Wilson and some witnesses allege or was he stumbling forward with 4 gunshot wounds? This goes to the reasonableness of Wilson’s fear and the accuracy of his testimony. It certainly seems like enough to indict.

      1. I’ve seen this set of numbers a few times and it is a pretty facile analysis. You have to account for acceleration. And reaction times (both parties). It takes a half-second to respond and pull the trigger. So if he covers that ground in 3 seconds how does that change things? What about 2.5? And how long does it take for a wound to bleed enough to make a trail? Is this hand blood or chest blood? And how long did it take for him to drop? Was it instant on the chest shot, and the head shot was on the way down, or was he bleeding from the chest and charging for 2 steps before getting hit in the head and falling right there?

        He could have walked slowly back for 10 seconds with his hand bleeding before getting shot and then not moved at all – leaving the pause as a red herring – or he could have been charging for 20 feet before any blood hit the ground. How long does it take for people watching to be able to read a “charge”? One step? A half step?

        Indicted or not, there’s almost zero chance to get beyond “reasonable doubt” for a conviction. I have no idea why so many people are married to the idea of an indictment. All the defense has to do is raise a modicum of doubt. If you couldn’t spin a convincing yarn to raise doubt from the available data you shouldn’t be an attorney.

        Not that any of this speaks to whether he handled the situation the right way.

  2. This may be a liar but wasn’t there more than one witness whose testimony corroborated Wilson’s story?

    1. The presser from the DA seemed to indicate that there were multiple corroborrating stories, from black witnesses in particular (unlike the woman outed as #40), and that these corroborrating witness accounts were the only ones that remained consistent throughout the duration of the investigation, as the others changed stories multiple times to incorporate the forensic evidence into their pre-conceived narratives.

      1. ^This. Thank you, Sudden.

        This “new information” is just another attempt to force the event into the PC narrative. It’s getting into conspiracy theory territory now.

      2. thanks for the info

  3. Maybe the federal investigation will take this under advisement.

    1. You say that as if the federal investigation has anything at all to do with anything other than politics. Funny!

  4. It’s almost like you can’t believe anything that anyone says anymore…

    1. It could mean that eyewitnesses are unreliable by nature.

      1. And fake eye witnesses are really unreliable.

        1. yes but if the fake story is true then thats all that matters. Isn’t that what Dan Rather said about his false story about President Bush’s Reserve duty service.

    2. I don’t believe that at all.

  5. The kind of groupies your profession attracts says a lot about your profession. My profession attracts zero groupies whatsoever.

    1. You’re missing out. Ain’t no groupies like accounting manager groupies.

      1. +1 Herbert Kornfeld.

  6. What difference – at this point – does it make?

  7. What a bangup job the DA did in putting his case together. Still, I guess its par for the course to uncritically put on evidence supporting the cop version.

    There are still real questions in my mind around the pause in the shooting (why pause, if the cop version is correct and he was being charged?) and the autopsy (which didn’t seem to show any injuries one might expect from a 300 pound guy faceplanting on the pavement, at a run, hard enough that his legs flew up behind him).

    1. Bumbles bounce….

      /Yukon Cornelius

    2. Still, I guess its par for the course to uncritically put on evidence supporting the cop version.

      He put on all the evidence, good and bad. Every “he had his hands up” and “he was shot in the back” liar was given an opportunity to talk. Many changed their stories. When it was all added up, Wilson’s story jibed with the forensic evidence and enough of the witnesses that they decided not to indict.

      Give it up, folks. This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be!

      1. I know, I know.

        My problem is and remains the double standard.

        Nobody but a cop would get a grand jury handled that way, and nobody but a cop would walk without an indictment with the amount of evidence that supported a charge, regardless of whether the defendant had some good evidence of his own.

        1. The prosecutor was clearly washing his hands of the case. Minus the scrutiny he would never have brought it to a grand jury. Easy reasonable doubt plus cop? I doubt he would have bothered to read the whole file before dropping the case, minus the press.

          Now he can claim he just let the facts fall where they may. Not his fault. (Obviously he could have cherry-picked testimony and facts to get an indictment if he wanted one)

          If it wasn’t a cop, he wouldn’t take it to a grand jury unless he wanted an indictment. In which case no, he wouldn’t have handled it that way.

      2. Yeah, people keep pretending the narrative didn’t collapse months ago. It’s fucking creepy.

  8. I’m guessing Dunphy is going to avoid this inconvenient thread.

    1. wrong as usual. just as, despite the liars here, i did not ignore the cleveland case, that i called an apparent crime/murder a month ago

      hth

    2. Is there physical evidence that contradicts the cop’s story? I haven’t heard of any. Did people saying that the shooting was bad change their stories? Do some of them believe weird crap? Were some of them, possibly, somewhere else entirely when the shooting happened?

      So, one witness for one version is a dingbat. This proves, what, exactly?

  9. Can’t we at least get a Rolling Stone editor to verify her story?

  10. Given that even police believed she was lying, wouldn’t this be subornation of perjury by the DA?

    1. Maybe but think about what you are saying here. Don’t let the fact that this guy was a cop blind you to the needs of justice and protecting the innocent in other cases. Do you really think it is a good idea to go after DAs for sublimation of perjury when they put on witnesses who provide exculpatory information, even if they are of questionable credibility? I sure don’t.

      1. Subornation of perjury. I cannot even begin to imagine what “sublimation of perjury” would be. Perjury that changes directly from solid state to gas?

    2. IANAL but I don’t think it works that way. DAs don’t necessarily decide who is lying before witnesses are called before a grand jury. They knew a bunch of pro-Brown witnesses were lying, coached by an anti-cop agitator named Anthony Shahid immediately after the event, but he had them testify, too.

      1. Yes. As a general rule, juries are the “finders of fact” (not law) and it is their JOB to determine how much credibility to give any given witness.

        part of the reason it is hard to convict cops in ACTUAL misconduct is that juries DO tend to like and trust cops more than the average joe. Just like people in general.

        that aside, the credibiity of the witness is largely a question for the jury. However, a lawyer is prohibited from suborning perjury – knowingly presenting testimony they know to be false, sa true. this does not mean that if a witness is “questionable’ as MANY ARE, they can’t present them as witnesses. if they selectively omit relevant facts as to their credibility, that is problematic.

  11. So again (read the volokh.com article), the key issue, besides the fact that Ofc. Wilson’s story simply “makes sense” and passes the smell test…

    is the physical evidence. Witnesses on either side can lie. The physical evidence does not. The bulk of it is such that it simply supports Ofc Wilson’s account FAR FAR more than it does any account adverse to his account, and simply does not come remotely close to establishing PC to indict.

    1. Answer the question:

      So if a guy knocked on the door of a cop’s house at 1:30 am and the cop answered the door with a gun in his hand because he was afraid that the guy might mean him harm, the guy would totally be justified in shooting the cop, right?

      1. No

        I will say this again, and its why no rational person gives a fuck about this case and the cops were not indicted.

        ANSWERING THE DOOR TO ***UNIFORMED COPS*** with a gun in your hand evidences an intent to get fucking shot

        im done answering stupid questions about this case.

        as i said, people on many occasions have doubted that i, in full uniform, was a cop at their door at o dark thirty (usually in cases where my parked police car was not visible. )

        IN EVERY CASE, they simply called 911 and easily confirmed their was a real cop at the door.

        in the case you mention, the cop cannot call 911 and determine that the “guy” was legit.

        in the case of COPS, you always have that option

        thus, as usual, the cases are extremely distinguishable

        you can rant and obfuscate all you want, but anybody who answers the door to uniformed cops with a gun in his hand has only himself to blame for getting shot. fuck him, and that’s how rational people view it and that’s why nobody got indicted. it’s such a fucking stupid case to get your knickers in a twist and NO rational person does shit like this

        hth

        1. ANSWERING THE DOOR TO ***UNIFORMED COPS***

          Who didn’t identify themselves as cops, smoochems.

          From your comment below:

          Im not going to ignore anything

          Except facts that don’t fit your narrative. But at least we know you don’t believe in equal justice.

          xoxoxo

          1. were they in uniform?

            yes, like i said.
            UNIFORMED COPS

            nobody gives a flying fuck about that shooting because its OBVIOUSLY justified

            nobody except reason kneejerkers

            it is such a stupid nonissue.

            it’s the mcmartin preschool case of reasonoid anticop bigots

            1. And he was supposed to know they were uniformed…how? X-ray vision?

              xoxoxo

            2. No, it ISN’T obviously justified. What IS obvious, save to those who have decided to hell with the rules, the Law, and the evidence, is that there isn’t enough evidence to indict, much less convict beyond reasonable doubt.

              Shouting “The shooting is OBVIOUSLY justified” convinces me, and I suspect everybody else, that you would have said the same thing if the cop had shot an 12 year old holding a flower.

              Shouting “The Cops are Never Wrong” is unhelpful, because it is so obviously untrue. If you ARE a cop, as has been implied here, I have to conclude that you are a bad one. You certainly make bad assumptions and assertions.

            3. Holy crap Dunphy, did you really type that out?

              A large chunk of this country has completely lost their minds over the last 20 years. We’ve gone from “if someone points a gun at you, you can shoot them in self-defense” to “if someone has a gun on them you can shoot them in self-defense” (if you carry a badge).

              It is kinda like the revisionist version of the Star Wars cantina scene where Greedo shoots first – only in this case we have trained our police to always shoot first. Whatever you do, don’t react like a sane and moral human when you knock on a door and you think you see a gun! Don’t duck around the corner for cover and identify yourself….. just shoot the bastard the minute you think you see a gun! That’s genius! You see a couple of teens in a dark hallway? Better shoot now, just in case. Kid might have a gun in his waistband? Better rush up really close where you don’t have any cover! And fire the second you see his hand go near the potential weapon! (better safe than sorry) Loony guy has a knife? Better run up close and surround him, just in case! Oops, he took a step toward me… time to shoot!

              All perfectly in accordance with “procedures”. Our training is complete crap. Some idiot translated the best strategy for “dynamic entry” situations onto every interaction – with lethal results. And nobody seems to be smart enough to realize what is going on.

    2. We can figure out how fast Brown was moving during the shooting from the physical evidence. Brown moved towards Wilson 25′. The audio of the shots is 6.5 seconds long with a 3 second pause apparently when Brown paused. That means that Brown moved 25′ in 3.5 seconds. That means that Brown was moving at 4.8 mph, hardly a charge, more like a brisk walk. Try it yourself. So was Brown charging “full speed”, head down as Wilson and some witnesses allege or was he stumbling forward with 4 gunshot wounds? This goes to the reasonableness of Wilson’s fear and the accuracy of his testimony. It certainly seems like enough to indict.

  12. McElroy, again under oath, explained to grand jurors that she was something of an amateur urban anthropologist. Every couple of weeks, McElroy testified, she likes to “go into all the African-American neighborhoods.” During these weekend sojourns–apparently conducted when her ex has the kids–McElroy said she will “go in and have coffee and I will strike up a conversation with an African-American and I will try to talk to them because I’m trying to understand more.”

    So she was shopping for drugs. Got it.

  13. Not really up on details in the Ferguson case, but just from what I know the cop’s account makes some sense.

    We know Brown roughed up the convenience store clerk and stole some Swishers. Those are facts.

    My conjecture on what happened next is when the cop harassed Brown about walking down middle of the street only minutes later, Brown figured cop was on to what he’d done at the convenience store. So Brown panic-attacked the cop – and he lost.

    1. Basically this.

      It was pretty amusing to see Ezra Klein’s reaction to the decision, which was basically “It makes no sense for Brown to have acted that way!” Well, Ezra, I hate to break it to you, but male teens, especially black ones in the ghetto and with gang ties, often do stupid and violent things that make no sense.

      1. we frequently run into this objection. I once tracked down a counterfeiting suspect who stepped out of his car with his COUNTERFEIT BILLS in hand and when I had him at gunpoint, literally dropped the evidence all over the street

        juries sometimes have a hard time believing cases involving this kind of “orgy of evidence” and irrational suspect behavior.

        I once had a violent arson suspect (who ended up gettign shot by the cops in an incident where he attacked them very violently) simply walk up to me and when I asked him what he was doing, he said he was watchign the fire he set because… bla bla bla.

        Again, “why would a rational person”… well, he was a schizophrenic and they arent always rational

        i had another case where I was scoping out a car a neighbor had called in as suspected of drug activity waiting to see if the plate came back clear before i approached (basic officer safety). guy gets out of the car and approaches me hands in front of him HOLDING his drugs saying “i thought you would find them anywaym, so I decided to turn them over”

        again, hard to believe

        ironically, i gave him a verbal warbning for mj possession (this was before we legalized it) and nobody cared. my sgt. approved it.

      2. “especially black ones in the ghetto and with gang ties,”

        Why spoil it by adding that? It isn’t necessary, or even pertinent. Teenage males are designed (either by a God with a sense of humor, or by evolution, or both) to be annoying little pricks, challenging every authority, and sure of their invincibility. It gets them thrown out of the pack or tribe and that spreads the genome farther. Some teenage males are socialized well enough that this isn’t close to the surface, but I think you can safely say of any male teen of whatever color that is brazenly shoplifting cigars, the he isn’t one of them.

    2. THis point is good, and has certainly been made many times.

      One of my best friends was shot under very similar circs.

      He was quetioning a man who he did not KNOW had just recently murdered somebody.

      This guy was a fuckstick gangbanger and my buddy should have pat frisked him, but that aside, the banger likely THOUGHT my buddy knew about the murder. he did not

      IF he did, he would have approached him with gun drawn, which is what we do with violent crime suspects and is what keeps us (relatively) safe.

      A SUBSTANTIAL # of police shootings involve cops approaching people who have just committed a violent crime UNBEKNOWNST to the cop.

      the cop approaches gun holstered and bad guy wins.

      thank you for making the point that many others have made, and it’s a great example of why the ofc wilson story passes the smell test for anybody who understands how these situatuions usually happen

      cheers

  14. And DailyKos last week pointed out how often Sean Hannity relied on her testimony in his public discussions of why he’s sure the grand jury got things right.

    Liars flock together.

  15. Im not going to ignore anything just like I did not ignore the apparent murder in Cleveland despite the lies to the contrary.

    Again, as i said, I almost always agree with the libertarian cop critics at volokh.com because they are fair critics of the police as I am.

    Reason.com , as even some cop critics here have pointed out in THIS CASE, has demonstrated total jump the shark kneejerk the cop must be wrong attitude not seen since Feministing approached the duke “rape” case with “they must be guilty” from the get go.

    Unlike people here, I have done actual investigations in actual shootings, stabbings etc.Guess what. Even in cases where the shooter was justified, sometimes people LIE *FOR THEM* just like some people lie AGAINST THEM.

    The “decider” in this case is the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

    the physical evidence paints a picture nearly entirely consistent with Ofc. Wilson’s account and nearly entirely inconsistent with the “he was no threat. he had his hands up” crowd

    again, thank god for volokh.com

    over the years, when the reason anticop echo chamber became especially ridiculous, they have always been there to show that TRUE libertarianism does not equal hatred of police or kneejerk criticism without cause.

    they got it right, and they are still getting it right

    simply put, not only was there no PC to indict Wilson (a burden of proof lying on the state), the bulk of the evidence makes it almost certain he’s innocent as hell

    1. I am willing to give a cop involved in a physical altercation a lot of leeway in the use of force. A phsycial altercation really is a case of a snap decision made under tremendous stress. Also, the justice demanded for the death of someone who starts a serious fight with a cop and ends up dead is just different than the justice demanded of a case like the Amu Diallo who just happens to be standing in the wrong place and is murdered by a trigger happy cop.

      The problem cases are the cases where the cops think their lives are more important that the people they are paid to protect and just murder someone just to be sure they are not a threat. This was not one of those cases.

      1. Diallo was not murdered by anybody.

        and that is a big reason why the cops got off without a conviction .. .because they overcharged.

        NYPD is hardly trigger happy. in a recent year, they shot a grand total of 30 people in a city well over 8 million (albeit a MUCH safer jurisdiction then where i work both in terms of cops being shot and shooting others)

        the diallo shooting was a terrible tragedy but if you study the actual details of the shoot, it was ARGUABLY manslaughter but CLEARLY not murder.

        in a city of 35000 cops with hundreds of thousands of encounters a year, you are aLWAYS going to have an occasional bad shoot. chance and statistics DEMANDS it. even with perfect training and all well meaning intelligent rational officers.

        it’s a question of statistics.

        diallo DID closely match the description (his picture is a near perfect match for the actual rape suspect later found) of a violent rape suspect wanted in the area, the cops were on guard, and it was a classic confluence of errors.

        but it was in no way murder. there was no mens rea for murder.

        just like in the BART shootign when ironaically BALKO and I were the ONLY people here who correctly viewed it as a manslaughter case that they jury got EXACTLY right.

        all the reasonoids thought it was murder

        1. I knew the BART case was manslaughter. And the Diallo case was 2nd degree murder in my opinion. Manslaughter is speeding and running someone over. What that cop did was depraved indifference. Shooting someone because you think they might have a gun, when that person is doing nothing threatening and exhibiting no hostile intent is beyond negligence and is recklessness to constitute second degree murder. You don’t agree because you have a warped view of law enforcement that says that your safety is more important than everyone else’ such that it is okay for you to risk killing an innocent person to reduce your own personal risk. I disagree.

          1. The one thing which struck me about the cops in the Diallo case was the number of rounds; forty rounds by four cops, and only half of them hit?

            If they were too far to be more accurate with pistols, they should not have been shooting first given their surroundings. If they were close enough to be more accurate, holy shit they shouldn’t have guns at all being that inept.

            Cops like calling everyone else civilians (which is a Freudian slip by wannabe soldiers – cops ARE fucking civilians), but from the average fuzzball marksmanship I typically read about, especially the NYPD, they’re more civilian than civilian.

            Even Fedayeen weren’t that bad (and they were comically bad).

            1. Cops are not, on the whole, good shots. They don’t get given much ammunition for practice, they don’t really get paid all that much, they don’t get credited for much range time, and they have a lot of demands on their time otherwise.

              There are exceptions. Most of them are gun hobbyists, who shoot for recreation.

              When I ran a small gallery in a run down neighborhood near a courthouse, I found that one of the best ways to turn down opportunities to donate to Cops sponsored charities (which are mostly OK, when you have an actual Cops asking, it’s on the phone they tend to be phonies) was to say “Start a charity to buy ammunition for Cops to practice with on the range, and I’m your man”

              I mean, seriously, I don’t really see the point of cop sponsored Circuses (though I understand that couple-three circuses make a pretty good thing out of it). But if I’m going to be dealing with armed men, I’d prefer that they were totally comfortable with their weapons. Fewer dumb mistakes that way.

  16. I did once see criticism of this chart, claiming that PBS was under-counting pro-Wilson testimony, but in any case it’s clear that discrediting one pro-Wilson witness doesn’t change anything. (Note: it looks like “Witness 40” has a different designation on this chart.)

  17. Everyone, please read the update up front on the post. I posted with negligent quickness and was not aware that even the prosecution in presenting her testimony seemed aware it was likely nonsense, making it, while an interesting story in how this GJ worked, likely not at all key to the outcome. That fact, minus i.d.ing her, had been reported earlier, see links in the update, but I was not aware of it at the time. I regret my errors, and ever having been born.

    1. Hey, I appreciate the update – way to be a principled journalist, Brian!

      +1

    2. Why would the prosecution present testimony from a probably lying witness that corroborates the cops story? It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me….

      1. Perhaps any due diligence on witness credibility wasn’t done until after clown spewed lies.

        They didn’t even know about her ’till she called in four weeks later, so that messy chronology might make some sense.

        Not a lawyer, but I would assume lying to grand jury under oath is perjury like any other court setting, right?

        They should charge her with such if her conduct is as described at Smoking Gun. It would be worth it just to see Hannity squirm disowning her drivel.

      2. He didn’t want an indictment.

        1. Even if he though the cops was a guilty as a cat in a goldfish bowl AND he wanted to punish the cop, he would have to feel reasonably sure that he could get a conviction to want an indictment.

          And given the evidence I have seen and heard about, I don’t see how he could have been.

      3. I think the prosecutor’s attitude was: “Cripes, I’m going to get roasted over the coals no matter what I do. The best thing is to give the grand jury absolutely everything, let them sort it out, and claim it was out of my hands. ‘I gave them all the witnesses, folks, so it’s not my fault.'”

        1. Also; no matter how bizarre a witness in a mess like this may be, if they are excluded some rabble rousing twit is going to make a fuss.

          Here at least, the prosecutor can reasonably say “Yes, I know. Her testimony was absurd. So was the testimony of A, B, and C on the other side of the question.”

  18. Oh brother. If nothing else, this particular case has proven that Reason readers and, apparently, writers, can be just as dogmatic and emotionally-blinded as anyone I’ve ever had the misfortune of running across at sleazefests like Huffpo or Democratic Underground.

    Reason my ass.

    1. You’d better be drinking, RIGHT FUCKING NOW….

  19. I find it bizarre that a person so easily discredited would even have been called to testify before the grand jury. Surely they vet witnesses to make sure they were, you know, ACTUALLY THERE….
    WTF?

  20. How can you even called someone a “witness” if they weren’t even present at the event, anyway.

    Why not have random people call in to the grand jury on a hotline and babble stuff about free masons. Makes about as much sense.

  21. This makes a lot of sense dude.

    http://www.TheAnonBay.tk

  22. My best friend’s step-mother makes $66 /hr on the internet . She has been out of work for 10 months but last month her payment was $12188 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    have a peek at this site —– http://www.jobsfish.com

  23. Blacks N*****s

    Black Nutters? Nepotists? Neapolitans? Nippers? Navalists! NeoNazis? Nephrologists! Necromancers! Nincompoops!

    I’m sorry, what was she calling them?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.