Mike Brown Shooting: Open Discussion, December 3, 2014

Documents Released in the Ferguson Case

Have at it.

 

This entry was posted in Constitutional Law, Evidence Law, Jurisprudence, Law Enforcement, Legal Analysis, Racism, United States. Bookmark the permalink.

667 Responses to Mike Brown Shooting: Open Discussion, December 3, 2014

  1. NBC says:

    The wealth of information is extremely useful and helpful. While some may believe that a Grand Jury may be overwhelmed by the information, I do not subscribe to such a hypothesis. The relevant components are easily identifiable and the issues straightforward.

    The location map of the spent casings, as well as some of the bullet trajectories have been very helpful as well.

  2. Bob Stone says:

    NBC,

    I glanced over at the Parcells thread from today.

    You are definitely kicking ass and taking names.

    I’m still working on an article at the moment.

    Meanwhile, you may find this critique of the PBS chart informative:

  3. Bob Stone says:

    I haven’t had a chance to review it yet; but at first glance it seems thorough.

  4. Kicking ass and….

    Teamwork is a wonderful thing;
    But to coin it as such gave me a great chuckle…

    Thanks

  5. NBC says:

    Bob: Meanwhile, you may find this critique of the PBS chart informative:

    Yes, I was also surprised by the PBS table which was not really that accurate.

  6. NBC says:

    Laser: Teamwork is a wonderful thing;

    Yep, with team work we may be able to determine the truth of some issues, or at least allow ourselves to be better informed.

  7. NBC says:

    The column, was MB fired upon when he ran away could be truthful as to the second bullet which was fired somewhat blindly out of the window.

  8. NBC says:

    And the angle would match the position MB could have been running. But the bullet missed and hit the building.

  9. NBC says:

    Also, based on the location of the casings, Wilson may have advanced further. He did back up according to testimony. So I am willing to allow that Wilson’s testimony at those of people who said that he shot when MB was fleeing can be reconciled, especially given the physical evidence. So, it is understandable why some said that Wilson fired on a fleeing MB while Wilson fired blindly after racking his gun which had failed to fire and then fired a shot.

  10. NBC says:

    Bob: You are definitely kicking ass and taking names.

    Well… I feel partially guilty of letting the conversation be distracted by my experiment with Gene, and to a lesser extent Laser. However, I do find that Mike and I share many similar opinions that should help us to work together towards a better understanding of the physical evidence and testimony presented.

    I am here to share my opinions, as well as to address factual mistakes and to help point people to evidence they may not have fully considered. In doing so I also force myself to revisit the evidence, and look at it in a new light.

    I do not shy away from sharing my opinion, however I hope that everyone here understand that my statements are not facts, evidence, expert advice and are only as good as my ability to absorb the facts, and evidence. So please consider my comments as a starting point, even if at times I may sound a bit forceful and share with me new findings and insights, one way or the other and I will do my best to respond.

    As I said in my introduction, I believe, like many others, that many things are wrong with our legal system. And note that when I observe that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich, this does not mean that some, many, or all prosecutors abuse the grand jury, but rather that it presents a potential for bias which can and should be avoided.

    Without people trusting and understanding our legal system there can not be moral justice, even though there is legal justice.

    Issues of jurisdiction, standing, res judicata and others are often lost on people and when they are raised, cause a sense of distrust. This can be cured or addressed by proper education. Other issues present an opportunity for reform.

    Since, at this moment, I am trying to establish if I believe that the Grand Jury made the correct decision, I am also bound by the laws of the State of Missouri, even if I disagree with them. So do not confuse a conclusion of agreement with the Grand Jury as an agreement with the system.

  11. Slartibartfast says:

    Slarti: As to Bob’s bias, it is obvious, strong, and unapologetic. There is substantial evidence of that in what he has written in this thread and its predecessors.

    So what? His arguments stand regardless. Rejecting them because of his bias is not the best way of dealing with his comments.

    First off, I have addressed the failings in Bob’s arguments repeatedly and his bias is one of them—he started this series by admonishing people for jumping to conclusions while making it obvious that he himself had jumped to the conclusion that Mr. Wilson was innocent. I reject Bob’s arguments because he overstates the evidence (see my discussion of the meaning of “supports” versus “is consistent with”, employs different standards depending on whether or not evidence supports Mr. Wilson (his position re the veracity of the testimony of Mr. Johnson vs. that of Mr. Wilson), marginalizes the legitimate protesters by painting them all as looters, rioters and outside agitators, refuses to even acknowledge Mr. Brown’s equal protection rights and has a bad tendency to make straw men of his opponent’s positions.

    I have always rejected Bob’s arguments on their merits, but Bob’s bias blindness (that’s for Blouise on her blogging break) is one of the reasons his arguments have no merits.

    Bob,

    I’m glad I found you a friend. It’s so cute when you pat each other on the butt.

  12. Bob Kauten says:

    Slarti,
    That did not qualify as a pat. The hand remained there for a bit too long. The photos were consistent with this narrative.
    Quod Erat Demonstrandum, for those whose naughty bits thrill at the use of dead languages.

  13. blouise says:

    Slarti,

    No contest, oh phoney phlying phlamingo

    But Bob’s bias blindness bedevils Blouise’s blogging break?

    Bazinga!

  14. blouise17 says:

    Bob K.

    A posteriori?

  15. Bob Stone says:

    Meanwhile,

    Kevin offers analysis of testimony and evidence he hasn’t even looked at.

  16. Bob Stone says:

    “Goodnight Austin Texas; wherever you are!”

  17. NBC says:

    Slarti: I reject Bob’s arguments because he overstates the evidence (see my discussion of the meaning of “supports” versus “is consistent with”, employs different standards depending on whether or not evidence supports Mr. Wilson (his position re the veracity of the testimony of Mr. Johnson vs. that of Mr. Wilson),

    Good points and one wants to be careful here. The problem we face here is that we have two people whose testimony may be self serving, and only one can be correct.

    To resolve that I look at physical evidence and other testimony.

    “Did you ever see his hands [MB] inside the car”, no Ma;’am

    He also testifies that the gun was fired and Mike’s hands were not inside the car or on the firearm. That appears to be contradicted by the soot and the DNA evidence.

  18. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC: “He also testifies that the gun was fired and Mike’s hands were not inside the car or on the firearm. That appears to be contradicted by the soot and the DNA evidence.”

    I don’t know that I’d go that far. The soot confirms that the hand wound was very close range (within inches), but that could plausibly mean that his hands were just outside the car, rather than inside. This would be consistent, I think, with the fragment of skin that was found on the outside surface of the driver’s door of the police car.

    Brown’s DNA on the gun comes from a sample that was taken from a “reddish brown stain” (i.e. blood) on the gun, and could have gotten on the gun without Brown touching the weapon. In fact, I think that it’s risky to assume that we know when the Brown DNA arrived at the places it was found.

    Let’s take, for example, the DNA found on the interior car door handle. Wilson reported, IIRC, washing blood off his hands at the station later, and the presence of the very clear Brown DNA on the interior door handle strikes me as possibly/probably coming from blood on Wilson’s hand. That strikes me as being at least as plausible as the DNA coming from Brown during the struggle – vehicle doors are curved a bit, and the interior handles are generally placed in locations that make it more difficult to get the door open the old-fashioned coat hanger way.

    Given the blood on Wilson’s hands, and given that we know that Wilson bagged his own gun as evidence, I think it’s unsafe to presume that the Brown DNA found on Wilson’s gun and clothing got there directly from Brown during a struggle. It might very well be that it did, but I think there’s too much chance that the DNA came from blood inadvertently spread around postmortem for that to be a safe assumption.

  19. NBC says:

    “I don’t know that I’d go that far. The soot confirms that the hand wound was very close range (within inches), but that could plausibly mean that his hands were just outside the car, rather than inside. This would be consistent, I think, with the fragment of skin that was found on the outside surface of the driver’s door of the police car.”

    Good observation. However we know that the gun was fired inside, and shattered the window. Wait a minute. The photograph I looked at showed the bullet inside the door. So how did Brown’s hand get injured?
    Time to make sure I got my facts right, but if the bullet stayed inside the door then the wound to the hand may be a ‘smoking gun’

  20. NBC says:

    Well, I do not see an exit hole on the outside of the vehicle and notice what appears to be a bullet inside the shattered window.

    So if the bullet did not exit and there was a wound on the right hand from a bullet, then there appears to be only one conclusion. No? Could it have been the second bullet? That would not explain the blood.

    Please tell me, am I missing something obvious here.

  21. NBC says:

    Also, some of the blood inside the car are droplets not smears.

  22. NBC says:

    These would likely be transfer from Wilson

  23. Slartibartfast says:

    NBC,

    Actually, the soot and DNA evidence is consistent with Mr. Johnson’s testimony. It is also consistent with Mr. Wilson’s testimony. It does not support either.

  24. Mike Dunford says:

    I just noticed one more thing about the physical evidence that is puzzling, and that’s the hand wound. Wilson testified that Brown’s hand was on the gun when he fired, and that Brown was grabbing the gun. The resulting wound is described in the official autopsy as “grazing,” presumably meaning that the bullet kept going.

    This struggle is taking place in or partly in the vehicle, through the vehicle window, and Brown is a big guy. What happened to that bullet after it creased Brown’s hand?

    If Brown was trying to get control of the gun and was reaching in through the open car window, I can only see two ways he could be grabbing the gun. One of those puts his thumb on the top of the barrel, with his fingers wrapping around the outside of the weapon. The second (and I think more likely) puts his thumb on the side of the barrel, with his fingers wrapping around the underside. Brown is a big guy, and is going to have been occupying a lot of the window. How does a shot crease the palm side of his thumb in either of those scenarios without ending up either somewhere else in Brown’s body, or somewhere in the car door?

  25. Mike Dunford says:

    OK, disregard last. I somehow managed to miss that the bullet did wind up somewhere else in the car.

  26. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC, did you see anything that would indicate if blood/tissue was found on the bullet recovered from the door? I’m still having a hard time figuring out how to match the wound with Wilson’s description of the sequence of events.

  27. NBC says:

    Mike: NBC, did you see anything that would indicate if blood/tissue was found on the bullet recovered from the door? I’m still having a hard time figuring out how to match the wound with Wilson’s description of the sequence of events.

    Nothing so far but give me some time.

  28. NBC says:

    Slarti: Actually, the soot and DNA evidence is consistent with Mr. Johnson’s testimony. It is also consistent with Mr. Wilson’s testimony. It does not support either.

    Not if the bullet ended up inside the door. It would not be consistent with Johnson and it would support Wilson’s

  29. Slartibartfast says:

    Blouise,

    How can I compete with that?

    Mike,

    Aloha.

    NBC,

    Where in our legal system is the mechanism to ensure that Mr. Brown’s equal protection rights are respected? How do you think that is supposed to work?

  30. NBC says:

    I do not believe the bullet was examined for blood/DNA. There is a mention that QB1 was compared to test firings but the bullet was too deformed.

  31. NBC says:

    Slarti: Where in our legal system is the mechanism to ensure that Mr. Brown’s equal protection rights are respected? How do you think that is supposed to work?

    Explain to me what you are thinking. What are these equal protection rights? Then we can explore the case of State v Wilson which involves Wilson’s equal protection rights.

    I’d say, awaiting your further explanations, that equal protection is protected the same way Wilson’s rights are protected, through our legal process. But you raise a good question: Do victims have an equal rights protection when it comes to criminal cases?

    Now I have seen you claim that 5th and 14th amendment rights were violated wrt Brown, could you elaborate?

  32. NBC says:

    Fifth amendment:

    nor shall any person be […] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

    Is that the clause you have in mind? I would argue that self defense would deal with that concern. It’s a balance between the rights of the victim and the rights of the defendant which would allow a self defense claim to survive due process concerns.

    Probably the same with the 14th. The right to self defense would override any rights the victim may claim.

    Is that what you had in mind as I am still not sure what your arguments would be.

  33. NBC says:

    Also, and Mike correct me if I am wrong, violations of constitutional amendments are typically civil not criminal proceedings? Unless by statute they are made criminal. Not sure what Mo statutes have to say about this.

  34. pete says:

    In the picture of broken glass I see two rivet heads and a 6mmx1.00 nut with washer on a dirty garage floor. I’m not saying there isn’t a bullet in there (there probably is, I just don’t see it).
    As far as the door panel pictures I wouldn’t trust them, in one there is a secondary image of the power window controller that appears to be in the inside door latch handle.
    Also where is the bullet hole in the inner door panel?

    I’ve repaired two door panels (that I recall) where the driver was attempting to bring up a 9mm handgun and prematurely fired a round through the door. On one that was the second round fired, the first went into the floorboard narrowly missing the driver/shooters right foot.

    To me this showcases the problem with the 9mm semi auto pistols that have become common in law enforcement. They have a fairly large capacity (generally 13-18 rounds depending on whether a round is chambered) yet they lack the power to go through a car door. This makes the shooter, L E or not, expend a large number of rounds while target fixated and not worrying about what may be downrange of the target.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire/

    In this instance nine bystanders were hit by police gunfire.

  35. Mike Dunford,
    I believe the evidence showed two rounds were fired from inside the vehicle. One was found embedded in the door, and the other has not been found. It appears that was the shot which grazed Brown’s hand. I knew that was a graze wound the moment I first saw the autopsy drawings. Assuming those drawings are reasonably accurate, that is a classic graze wound. The fact that powder residue was found at the wound site, tends to confirm that it was incurred at very close range; i.e., point-blank instead of from a distance of feet or yards. The bullet grazed Brown’s hand and kept going, apparently outside the vehicle. Obviously, it could have ended up anywhere within perhaps a half-mile. I doubt it will ever be found.

  36. Elaine M. says:

    The Last Word with Lawrence ODonnell: Mo. Atty. Gen: change deadly force law (from last night’s program)

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d5jHShLD8i8

  37. Mike Spindell says:

    While Bob and his new assistant dazzle you with their presumed forensic expertise, perhaps this article puts into perspective the real issue of Ferguson and American that they merrily dance around: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ferguson-Lays-Bare-Police-by-Joan-Brunwasser-City-Of-Ferguson_Ferguson-Missouri_Interviews_Military-Equipment-Weapsons-Supplies-141203-444.html

  38. Negative feedback loop indeed, Mike. A negative feedback loop that is also reflected in a general distrust of the government as well as the police in particular. In the 1950’s, surveys of Americans indicated that 75% of those surveyed “trusted the government to do the right thing”. By the 1970’s, the same question only garnered a 25% positive response. Although I haven’t seen a contemporaneous study along that line, I cannot imagine that number has improved. Or, for that matter, that giving preferential treatment to police in proceedings helps that negative perception.

  39. There must be empiricals – somewhere – on increase ( or “de” if possible) of police shooting, non gun carrying persons.

    There shpuld also be empiricals on the race issues of shooter n thosr shot.

    How often do we ever hear of a non Caucasian officer, shooting a Caucasian.

    I’m just sayin…..

  40. Bob Stone says:

    Slarti: “Actually, the soot and DNA evidence is consistent with Mr. Johnson’s testimony.”

    Wow.

    “Hands up!”

    “How Many?!”

  41. Hands down.to wipe the BS naysaying is shoveling

  42. Bob Stone says:

    Hocus to Mike Spindell (in sarcasm): “Really? The Grand Jury’s purpose is to determine if there is a reasonable suspicion that a person should be indicted?”

    Mike: “Hocus, Really……….”

    Wrong Mike.

    You don’t even have the decency to get the standard straight.

    Reasonable suspicion is what a cop needs for a Terry stop; which is a hell of a lot less than probable cause.

    There’s no “reasonable suspicion” mentioned in the constitution because it didn’t exist as a standard until 1968.

    Your “real issue of Ferguson” is as about as legally relevant to the rights of the accused in a criminal proceeding as a map of Stalingrad is in navigating the streets of Chicago.

    Happy trails.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “Your “real issue of Ferguson” is as about as legally relevant to the rights of the accused in a criminal proceeding as a map of Stalingrad is in navigating the streets of Chicago.”

      Bob,
      You are 100% correct and I’ve never said that it was about the rights of the accused, You framed it in those terms because it fit your police bias. The problem is the log in your eye is so big that it renders you incapable of understanding what I’m writing about and your need to win the day is so urgent that you are incapable of understanding the real issues entailed. Damn that bike must have meant so much to you emotionally as do your police friends from college. This is why you consistently fail to understand what I’m really writing about, whether you or disagree that the police in this country have gone overboard. You also pretend that our legal system is pristine, when as a lawyer you should know better. I guess things look rosier behind those “glasses” you wear to prop up your self esteem as a lawyer.

      • Bob Stone says:

        Mike: “You are 100% correct and I’ve never said that it was about the rights of the accused, You framed it in those terms because it fit your police bias. ”

        Okay Mike,

        I spent my third year in law school doing independent research of the meaning and origins of the Ninth Amendment … because of my police bias?

        How dare you scold NBC while coming at me with this crap.

  43. So…who is the expert on GJ rules in Mizoo?

  44. NBC says:

    Pete: In the picture of broken glass I see two rivet heads and a 6mmx1.00 nut with washer on a dirty garage floor. I’m not saying there isn’t a bullet in there (there probably is, I just don’t see it).
    As far as the door panel pictures I wouldn’t trust them, in one there is a secondary image of the power window controller that appears to be in the inside door latch handle.”

    Why would you not trust the door panels? And yes, the ‘rivet heads’ are the bullet.

    “Also where is the bullet hole in the inner door panel?”

    It’s not a round hole but this is the bullet hole that shatter the window while it was rolled down.

  45. NBC says:

    This one is a close up, you can even see what appears to be blood transfer

  46. NBC says:

    I believe that Johnson’s testimony at some key places diverges from the physical evidence and the testimony of other witnesses.

    Certainly the blood splatters inside the vehicle, the bullet that never exited, and the hand wounds are very hard to explain in Johnson’s scenario.

  47. Bob Stone says:

    Mike Spindell says:
    December 4, 2014 at 10:01 am (Edit)

    NBC,

    As one of the editors of this blog let me call a time out. Your continued poking at Laser is becoming somewhat close to a violation of our posted rules on two counts. The first is that it is consistently off topic and thus does nothing to advance the flow of discussion on this thread. Secondly, though we all know Laser’s identity, we don’t know yours, or in fact anything about who you are. This gives you a rather unfair advantage in your hectoring of him. Please understand this is not a threat on my part since we are extremely tolerant of most speech, including personal attacks on individuals based on their comments. We do tolerate incivility in speech and I must admit guilt in that area at times. Where you are treading close to the line is in your research of Laser’s case and continued efforts to bait him about it. While it is true that Laser refers to his particular legal woes a lot (quite understandable given his experiences) on this thread he has pretty much stayed with the topic. I ask you to desist in your baiting of him as a matter of decency.

    Gene Howington says:
    December 4, 2014 at 10:21 am (Edit)

    As Editor in Chief and after looking over the blog this morning, I’m going to second what Mike said and bolster it.

    Consider this your one warning, NBC. You want to act like a troll, I’m sure they’ll welcome you back to Fogbow.

    Bob Stone Says

    Bullshit. Laser can continually dish out ad hominem but he can’t take it?

    Is Laser the new Nick?

    To claim that NBC is “[acting] like a troll” is an outright lie. Trolls do not exhibit sound reasoning skills while citing proper case law.

    If NBC is a troll then what am I? Alberich?

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “Bullshit. Laser can continually dish out ad hominem but he can’t take it?”

      Bob,
      I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that you had a learning disability and thus can’t comprehend what is written. NBC and Laser can trade ad hominem to their heart’s content. What I called NBC out on was that he was doing research into Laser’s history and that does skirt close to out of bounds of the rules, just as when at Turley someone started describing where I live. If I know stuff about someone from offline sources, that doesn’t give me the right to reveal it here unless they reveal it themselves. While Laser has revealed a lot of the stuff about his court case, NBC’s delving into it with him on the thread, was not only widely off-topic, but unfair because NBC is a pseudonym thus putting them into an unequal position. Besides you know damn well that one of the reasons I was the first to quit Turley was that Nick, the private eye, was alluding to digging into my personal affairs and Turley wouldn’t rein him in.

      “Okay Mike,
      I spent my third year in law school doing independent research of the meaning and origins of the Ninth Amendment … because of my police bias?”

      Bob, you go from the sublime to the ridiculous. I spent MY second year of Law School getting a B+ from Mario Cuomo in Criminal Procedure (and if he had taught NYS Property Law I might have graduated) and what does that mean? You always try to resort to authority in one way or other, which leads me to suspect you are insecure. You bias was evident since you were the one choosing this opening to your first story on Ferguson and I take you at your word:

      “For the cop who paid it forward back in the summer of 1977 by taking the time to track down a 10 year-old boy’s brand-new Ross Apollo 3 speed that was stolen. I’ll never forget how he convinced me that the kids who stole it and raised the seat and stripped off a lot of the paint before leaving it in the woods somehow made it ‘faster.’ I thought it was the coolest bike in the world after that.

      And for my friends in college who went on to become cops.

      Let me begin by saying that in my own personal mythology I consider all cops and members of the military as my dogs. For anyone that has ever experienced the unconditional love of a dog the metaphor is quite obvious.”

      “Unconditional Love”, your words Bob and they are clear evidence of bias. In addition you’ve been called out by many on your use of pejoratives to describe anyone that disagrees with you and that too is indicative to my mind of bias. so I can understand why you have felt beleaguered by the fact that most commenters disagree with you and therefore embraced NBC as an ally. I would say though that you need to be careful what you wish for because while in this case NBC and I disagree, it appears that in other instances we are in agreement. That has been the warp and woof of many of the good discussions here, and at Turley’s before it became a right wing cesspool. We can agree to disagree, sometimes angrily yet maintain a fairly high level of discussion. Sometimes the disagreements get personal as they do with all friends and friendly acquaintances. However,Bob you are beginning to wear my patience thin by implying that I’m out to get NBC for siding with you. By now you should know my history all too well to know that isn’t how I operate.

      • Bob Stone says:

        Mike: ““You are 100% correct and I’ve never said that it was about the rights of the accused, You framed it in those terms because it fit your police bias. ”

        Bob: “I spent my third year in law school doing independent research of the meaning and origins of the Ninth Amendment … because of my police bias?”

        Mike: “Bob, you go from the sublime to the ridiculous. I spent MY second year of Law School getting a B+ from Mario Cuomo in Criminal Procedure (and if he had taught NYS Property Law I might have graduated) and what does that mean? You always try to resort to authority in one way or other, which leads me to suspect you are insecure.”

        Mike,

        You accuse me of being authoritarian; yet I’m the one objecting to YOUR application of a theory of collective guilt to the judgment of an individual.

        You have charged me with basing my concern with the rights of the accused on bias rather than principle.

        Please prove to us that your ignorance of the ninth amendment is not matched by your indifference to the rights of the accused (that you happen to dislike).

        Please spell out the obvious sarcasm in the following:

        “I spent my third year in law school doing independent research of the meaning and origins of the Ninth Amendment … because of my police bias?”

        I stand by my words Mike; how about you?

        • Mke Spindell says:

          “You accuse me of being authoritarian; yet I’m the one objecting to YOUR application of a theory of collective guilt to the judgment of an individual.”

          Bob,

          Once again your reading comprehension is almost non-existent and for one who so takes pride in his logic that can be a handicap. Where did I say that Wilson should suffer a punishment based on the “collective” guilt of the police? The answer is nowhere and I defy you to find otherwise in any of my comments. You assume that is my position since from the start of this you have assumed bad faith and a rush to judgment by those who have taken up Mike Brown’s side.and denied their viewpoints any validity while simultaneously demonizing Mike Brown and anyone asking for justice for his murder. I assume you don’t like the term “murder” in connection to this case, but by the same token I find your use of the words “mob” similarly offensive and barely disguised surrogates for “niggers”. You have implied that anyone here that disagrees with you is part of a g”grievance syndicate” and in that trivialization you are implying that this country doesn’t have a problem with “race”, only with what you would call “Black race baiters”, or as Bull Connor and James Eastland used to say “outside agitators, a position the KKK would applaud. Now you might object to my lumping you in with the Klan, which is the height of denial because you have lumped your rhetorical opponents here with a broad and nasty brush. In the process of defending your position of bias.

          “Please spell out the obvious sarcasm in the following:
          “I spent my third year in law school doing independent research of the meaning and origins of the Ninth Amendment … because of my police bias?”

          Fuck you Bob. I keep telling you that I refuse to play your game which is to only deal with the issues you are comfortable with and ignore, in my case fail to understand, any positions with which you are uncomfortable in dealing. I don’t deal with philosophers like Kant, nor do i deal with with issues of Constitutional Interpretation. Not my field Bob, I’m a psychotherapist and a social worker. I think that most formal philosophy is bullshit and have told you that in the past and I believe that our Constitution has long been abandoned. My expertise is in the effect of psychology on human behavior and what I can document and have, is that the Constitution has little affect on American reality, rather that reality is the product of human ego using pretend principles and ideology to mask their very self entered actions.

          I deal with the reality of such situations as have occurred in Ferguson and look at the motivations of the principle actors. I have stated time and again that I never once believed Wilson would come to trial and that has come to pass. I have noted that supposed Constitutional scholars such as yourself view each succeeding situation of a unarmed person of color being killed as isolated only by the specific case. What I call that is empathic blindness in the service of their own biases. As a psychotherapist I understand how hard it is for people to really understand their actions/biases, even though as in this case it is obvious to everyone but themselves. If you think I’m implying that I am more self aware than you, then you have it right.

        • Mike Spindell says:

          “There are always risks in challenging excessive police power, but the risks of not challenging it are more dangerous, even fatal.”–Hunter S. Thompson, Kingdom of Fear: Loathsome Secrets of a Star-Crossed Child in the Final Days of the American Century”

          Hmm……could he have been a member of the “grievance syndicate”?

  48. NBC says:

    Bob, Gene, Mike – I am not a troll, however I do understand that my comments to Laser, although made in response to some of his statements about what he believed to be legal mistakes, may not be in line with the expectations of this forum. Having said that, I do understand that Laser has suffered immensely from the Romney/Baine related actions, and I by no means am in support of what happened. It’s a travesty.

  49. Bob Stone says:

    I rest my case.

  50. NBC says:

    Laser: So…who is the expert on GJ rules in Mizoo?

    The rules from the Missouri Revised Statutes are pretty general, with few guidelines so far, and this is an excellent question.

    http://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2013/title-xxxvii/chapter-540/

    I believe a Grand Jury proceeding in Missouri is not required for an indictment and most typically, the prosecutor would present the evidence and witnesses in a preliminary hearing to a judge who will make the probable cause determination. In this, the defense attorney can cross examine the prosecutor’s witnesses and introduce witnesses/evidence.

  51. swarthmoremom says:

    I think the question was “who is the expert”? I think mespo is the only bona fide criminal defense attorney that posts here. Correct me if I am wrong.

  52. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC: Is there, anywhere in the material you are looking at, any diagram showing the path of that particular bullet? Given the hole on the inside of the door, not to mention the dent mentioned on the outside, the exact trajectory should have been determinable, yes? And that would show a hell of a lot about where the gun was when fired, yes?

    Bob/others: Since I’m coming into this late, and in the context of some prior discussions with NBC on this, let me take a second or two to explain my own views on the grand jury. I am not at all sure that the evidence presented would have supported a conviction, but I think that there were more than enough consistencies in all the accounts to support an indictment. I think that the lack of an indictment resulted from the prosecution’s efforts to not secure an indictment.

    I’ve read some of the released transcripts, and continue to read more. The more I read, the more convinced I become that the prosecution’s efforts ensured that the grand jury would not return an indictment.

  53. NBC says:

    Not being a lawyer, I still conclude that if a Judge had to rule in a preliminary hearing as to probable cause, he would have to consider that Wilson had an absolute defense based on self defense. Just as what likely happened here with the Grand Jury.

  54. Mike D.,

    “I am not at all sure that the evidence presented would have supported a conviction, but I think that there were more than enough consistencies in all the accounts to support an indictment. ”

    Yep.

  55. NBC,

    And that? Would be a proper assertion of an affirmative defense. Not the DA essentially presenting that affirmative defense at the grand jury.

  56. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D.: “I am not at all sure that the evidence presented would have supported a conviction, but I think that there were more than enough consistencies in all the accounts to support an indictment. I think that the lack of an indictment resulted from the prosecution’s efforts to not secure an indictment.”

    A prosecutor has an ethical obligation to refrain from obtaining an indictment if he has no reasonable expectation of getting a conviction.

    The prosecutor “is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” (Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935))

    McCulloch sought justice rather than an indictment.

  57. NBC says:

    Testimony – Document 2

    “So I talked with the detective that was going to process his car and we, not quickly, but we briefly opened the door where I photographed the hole that corresponds with the dent on the outside of the door and then we went through just looking under chairs,…”

    Q And is there a hole, is there a hole in what you are looking at there?
    A From the outside of the vehicle?
    Q From the outside of the car?
    A No.
    MS. ALIZADEH: Okay. Any questions about this. Okay.
    MS. WHIRLEY: Is there a hole from the inside looking out?
    A There is.

    Image 115. Close-up intermediate view of circular defect to the inside panel of the driver door.
    Q So this portion right here is like the arm rest?
    A Yes.
    Q And then this is the actual side of the interior of the car?
    A Yes, ma’am.
    Q Is that a hole?
    A Yes.

    Okay, another detective dealt with this evidence. Let’s track that one down.

  58. Elaine M. says:

    Killed by the Cops [INFOGRAPHIC]
    http://colorlines.com/archives/2014/11/infographic_killed_by_the_cops.html

    Excerpt:
    Before Michael Brown and John Crawford III and Eric Garner and Aiyana Stanley Jones and Akai Gurley there was Oscar Grant. The transit police killing of the 22-year-old at Oakland’s Fruitvale Station on New Year’s Day in 2009 sparked national outrage when video of it went viral. Finally, there was recent proof that black men face an outsize risk of death at the hands of law enforcement. For killing Grant, former BART police officer Johannes Mehserle was convicted for involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to two years in prison. He only served 11 months.

    While covering the trial, my colleague Julianne Hing wondered how best to pursue justice for black victims of police killings. “Criminal prosecutions are a necessary salve for families who want personal accountability for their deepest losses and courts remain the most public venue to demand justice for police officers’ violent behavior,” she wrote. “But for many organizers and academics who work on police brutality issues, they are not the most effective. Prosecutions so often end in acquittal, for one—as the painful verdicts for the cops charged with attacking Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell, Abner Louima and Rodney King all illustrate this.”

    ProPublica analyzed the FBI’s data from 2010—the year of Mehserle was convicted—through 2012 and found that young black men are 21 times more likely than their white peers to to be killed by police.

  59. NBC says:

    Audio of the shooting?

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/26/cnn-audio-is-this-the-moment-michael-brown-was-shot/comment-page-1/

    A company who specializes on locating gun shots claims that they came all from the same location.

    Two sets of volleys adding up to 11 or 10. If that is the case, then there is no support for multiple shots fired while Brown was fleeing?

  60. NBC says:

    More detail: The recorded sounds are in the background of the man’s voice. It is playing on CNN as a recording of six shots [1-5 sequence] {2.76 sec pause} and then four more shots [1-3 sequence].

  61. NBC says:

    Elaine: ProPublica analyzed the FBI’s data from 2010—the year of Mehserle was convicted—through 2012 and found that young black men are 21 times more likely than their white peers to to be killed by police.

    One has to be careful with such an analysis since black teenage crime rates are 9 times that of whites, reducing the number from 21 times to about 2.3 times.

    Worse, as John Lott argues:

    But they don’t make it clear that literally only a couple hundred police departments (217 in 2012, just 1.2% of all the departments in the country) report these numbers.

    and

    “Even worse, the very few police departments that do report are predominately urban areas, which tend to have much higher concentrations of blacks. This skews the numbers to over-represent black deaths.”

    In other words, one has to be careful with the data, and therefor the conclusions.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “One has to be careful with such an analysis since black teenage crime rates are 9 times that of whites, reducing the number from 21 times to about 2.3 times.”

      NBC,

      One might have a different perspective on that if one had read this: https://flowersforsocrates.com/2014/02/25/the-incarceration-of-black-men-in-america/

      • NBC says:

        Not really. When interpreting these raw data points, you need to understand if other factors can explain the data. The mere existence of a raw disproportionate rate is not sufficient. I will look at the study you mention but raw incarceration rates are not sufficient to make claims of racial disparity, until one understands crime patterns in general.

        • Mike Spindell says:

          “Not really. When interpreting these raw data points, you need to understand if other factors can explain the data.”

          NBC,

          Perhaps you mean by that alternate explanation that people of color are more prone to commit crimes? That certainly is an alternative explanation.

          • NBC says:

            That indeed is an alternative explanation, I am glad that you understand correlation and causation, but it is not the only explanation, there could be third factor which causes the correlation.

            Now that you understand the possibilities, how would you correct for these factors?

            So let’s say that black people are more likely to be poor and poverty and crime correlate? Just something to ponder.

  62. Eliane,

    Thanks for the data, such as Propublica ( funded, in part, by Heritage etc)

    Facts are facts

  63. NBC says:

    Laser: Facts are facts

    Be careful there… Even propublica points out some possible confounds. The risk ratio ranges from 10 to 40, and that’s before correcting for other factors such as likelihood of being involved in a crime, and the poor reporting across police of these data.

    http://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white

    So facts are only facts in a limited fashion when it comes to statistics.

  64. Elaine M. says:

    NBC,

    Let’s not forget that black teenagers and black adults are targeted by some police departments. Think about the “stop and frisk” program in NYC. How many white Wall Street banisters have been indicted or gone to jail? How many middle class white kids get drug charges dropped as opposed to poor black kids?

  65. NBC says:

    Elaine: Let’s not forget that black teenagers and black adults are targeted by some police departments. Think about the “stop and frisk” program in NYC. How many white Wall Street banisters have been indicted or gone to jail? How many middle class white kids get drug charges dropped as opposed to poor black kids?

    Even if true, that does not mean that the data you presented from Propublica shows what one may believe it does.

    As to other claims, it would be helpful to see the data before drawing conclusions, let’s not forget that either.

  66. Elaine M. says:

    http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices

    Stop-and-Frisk Campaign: About the Issue

    The NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and privacy rights. The Department’s own reports on its stop-and-frisk activity confirm what many people in communities of color across the city have long known: The police are stopping hundreds of thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year, and the vast majority are black and Latino.

    An analysis by the NYCLU revealed that innocent New Yorkers have been subjected to police stops and street interrogations more than 4 million times since 2002, and that black and Latino communities continue to be the overwhelming target of these tactics. Nearly nine out of 10 stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been completely innocent, according to the NYPD’s own reports.

  67. NBC says:

    Again, we see that more blacks and latinos are stopped, however we need to look at more data to see if that is out of line with expectations. It’s overly simplistic to look at just the raw data and draw conclusions. Let’s see if I can find better data.

  68. Mike Spindell says:

    whether you [agree] or disagree that the police

  69. NBC says:

    This one is doing a better job at controlling for the confounds

    Recent studies by police departments and researchers confirm that police stop persons of racial and ethnic minority groups more often than whites relative to their proportions in the population. However, it has been argued that stop rates more accurately reflect rates of crimes committed by each ethnic group, or that stop rates reflect elevated rates in specific social areas, such as neighborhoods or precincts. Most of the research on stop rates and police–citizen interactions has focused on traffic stops, and analyses of pedestrian stops are rare. In this article we analyze data from 125,000 pedestrian stops by the New York Police Department over a 15-month period. We disaggregate stops by police precinct and compare stop rates by racial and ethnic group, controlling for previous race-specific arrest rates. We use hierarchical multilevel models to adjust for precinct-level variability, thus directly addressing the question of geographic heterogeneity that arises in the analysis of pedestrian stops. We find that persons of African and Hispanic descent were stopped more frequently than whites, even after controlling for precinct variability and race-specific estimates of crime participation.

    THis one finds small differences

    http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR534.html

    “Officers frisked white suspects slightly less frequently than they did similarly situated nonwhites (29 percent of stops versus 33 percent of stops).
    Black suspects are slightly more likely to have been frisked than white suspects stopped in circumstances similar to the black suspects (46 percent versus 42 percent).
    The rates of searches were nearly equal across racial groups, at between 6 and 7 percent. However, in Staten Island, the rate of searching nonwhite suspects was significantly greater than that of searching white suspects.
    White suspects were slightly more likely to be issued summons than were similarly situated nonwhite suspects (5.7 percent versus 5.2 percent). On the other hand, arrest rates for white suspects were slightly lower than those for similarly situated nonwhites (4.8 percent versus 5.1 percent).”

    As always, buyer beware when it comes to statistical data.

  70. NBC says:

    Gene: I guess things look rosier behind those “glasses” you wear to prop up your self esteem as a lawyer.

    Come on Mike… Feeling better now? Let’s do what we preach and preach what we do. Just saying

  71. Elaine M. says:

    NBC,

    No one is stopping you from looking for data on the subject. Go to it! Be my guest.

    I will leave you with this link:

    http://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white

  72. Elaine M. says:

    White People Stopped By New York Police Are More Likely To Have Guns Or Drugs Than Minorities
    BY AVIVA SHEN POSTED ON MAY 22, 2013 AT 12:20 PM UPDATED: MAY 22, 2013 AT 11:50 AM
    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/22/2046451/white-people-stopped-by-new-york-police-are-more-likely-to-have-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities/

    Excerpt:
    During the just-concluded trial on the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk program, the city argued that officers’ disproportionate targeting of black and Latino New Yorkers was not due to racial profiling but because each stopped individual was doing something suspicious at the time. The data, however, tells a different story: weapons and drugs were more often found on white New Yorkers during stops than on minorities, according to the Public Advocate’s analysis of the NYPD’s 2012 statistics.

    White New Yorkers make up a small minority of stop-and-frisks, which were 84 percent black and Latino residents. Despite this much higher number of minorities deemed suspicious by police, the likelihood that stopping an African American would find a weapon was half the likelihood of finding one on a white person.

  73. NBC says:

    Elaine: I will leave you with this link:

    Yes, that’s the one I was looking at as well. The picture is much more subtle than the 21 times number, which I pointed out fails to address various confounding factors.

    As to the stop and frisk, I hope my research helped you.

  74. Elaine M. says:

    NBC,

    I’m having trouble reading that Rand study. I can open the link–but then the page shuts down on my iPad and cell phone. I’ll have to check it out tonight when I have access to a computer. BTW, what year/years was the data from?

    ———-

    Click to access DeBlasioStopFriskReform.pdf

  75. NBC says:

    Mike: What I called NBC out on was that he was doing research into Laser’s history and that does skirt close to out of bounds of the rules, just as when at Turley someone started describing where I live.

    I was trying to understand more about his anger towards the legal system, followed the link to his blog and noticed the case he had referenced in his response, a response which did not make sense to me. Ok, now let me make sure that my memory gets the events in the right order. And yes, I am very concerned about the privacy of people on blogs and for having violated or skirted the rules in that respect, I strongly apologize.

    I checked and yep I did get the order of events right. Laser sounded upset and I wanted to know what caused his anger, so I followed his link and found the relevant document and observed that now I understand better.

    I will avoid the topic when and if I respond to Laser in the future as I do not want to give him cause for concern. I empathize with his situation.

  76. NBC says:

    Mike: Let me begin by saying that in my own personal mythology I consider all cops and members of the military as my dogs. For anyone that has ever experienced the unconditional love of a dog the metaphor is quite obvious.”

    “Unconditional Love”, your words Bob and they are clear evidence of bias.

    That I do not understand. He considers them to be HIS dogs which means that he expects unconditional love from them. He does not seem to be expressing unconditional love towards them, at least not in that statement by itself.

    Bob continues:

    After all, I do feed the dogs. Sorry, I meant to say “I pay their salary.” And it’s their job to love me unconditionally, or “serve and protect me” — during weekends, birthdays, anniversaries, holidays, graveyard shifts, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and other natural disasters, and to otherwise risk their lives — just to make me feel cozy. Considering all cops and members of the military as my dogs is the highest form of compliment I can pay them

    To me it sounds almost like the opposite, a sarcastic comment that makes them subservient to him combined with a statement that this is the highest form of compliment, evokes a picture in my mind of Bob ridiculing the police and the military.

    The next part is more relevant

    Accordingly, unlike those who take the dogs for granted—e.g., only claiming ownership when arrested (“I pay your salary….”)—as my dogs protect me I know it’s my job, when necessary, to have my dogs’ backs.

    To have his dogs’ backs. Still not necessarily bias, but stronger.

    The clencher for me:

    So I tell the mob that if my dog attacked and killed a man without legal justification, then my dog should be held accountable. But if it turns out that my dog attacked and killed because he was justified in doing so—i.e., he did what he was trained to do—then you’ll have to pack up your torches and pitchforks and apologize to my dog.

    Sounds just the opposite of a bias.

    So, sorry, I cannot follow your argument here. Did you interpret the usage of unconditional love to refer to Bob’s love for his dogs? That is not supported by his statements

  77. NBC says:

    Elaine: I’m having trouble reading that Rand study. I can open the link–but then the page shuts down on my iPad and cell phone. I’ll have to check it out tonight when I have access to a computer. BTW, what year/years was the data from?

    Yes, it opens excruciatingly slowly on my fast computer/connection

    2007 based on 2006 date from NY City

    Here is the abstract

    In 2006, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) stopped a half-million pedestrians for suspected criminal involvement. Raw statistics for these encounters suggest large racial disparities — 89 percent of the stops involved nonwhites. Do these statistics point to racial bias in police officers’ decisions to stop particular pedestrians? Do they indicate that officers are particularly intrusive when stopping nonwhites? The NYPD asked the RAND Center on Quality Policing (CQP) to help it understand this issue and identify recommendations for addressing potential problems. CQP researchers analyzed data on all street encounters between NYPD officers and pedestrians in 2006. They compared the racial distribution of stops to external benchmarks, attempts to construct what the racial distribution of the stopped pedestrians would have been if officers’ stop decisions had been racially unbiased. Then they compared each officer’s stopping patterns with an internal benchmark constructed from stops in similar circumstances made by other officers. Finally, they examined stop outcomes, assessing whether stopped white and nonwhite suspects have different rates of frisk, search, use of force, and arrest. They found small racial differences in these rates and make communication, recordkeeping, and training recommendations to the NYPD for improving police-pedestrian interactions.

  78. Elaine M. says:

    You might want to check the report that I left a link to earlier. That data is more recent. Here’s an excerpt from it:

    OVERVIEW
    In May 2012, the NYPD announced a series of reforms to the practice of stop, question, and frisk. These reforms were promised to lead to significant changes in the administration, oversight, and application of the tactic. However, as an analysis of the 2012 Stop Question and Frisk database by the Office of the Public Advocate demonstrates, these reforms have led to little substantive change as measured by efficacy or changes in disparate racial impact.

    Despite a reduction in the overall number, stop-and-frisk continues to be significantly overused, especially compared with earlier years in the Bloomberg Administration. But just as concerning, New Yorkers have yet to see meaningful reforms of the way the NYPD conducts stop-and-frisks. Consistently large numbers of innocent people – overwhelmingly people of color – remain subject to unwarranted stops that yield little value as measured by weapons recovered. And according to recently reviewed data, stops of African-American and Latino New Yorkers are consistently less likely to yield weapons and contraband than those of white New Yorkers, indicating a systematic difference in how the tactic is being applied.

    The Public Advocate’s analysis of 2012 data finds:

     The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered a weapon in one out every 49 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 71 stops of Latinos and 93 stops of African Americans to find a weapon.

     The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded contraband was one-third less than that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered contraband in one out every 43 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 57 stops of Latinos and 61 stops of African Americans to find contraband.

     Despite the overall reduction in stops, the proportion involving black and Latino New Yorkers has remained unchanged. They continue to constitute 84 percent of all stops, despite comprising only 54 percent of the general population. And the innocence rates remain at the same level as 2011 – at nearly 89 percent.

    These disparities—in productivity and frequency of stops—demonstrate a pattern of racial profiling in the current stop-and-frisk policy. They make clear the need to aggressively prevent racial profiling.

    Real reform can be achieved by creating an independent Inspector General of the NYPD and by passing legislation banning racial profiling in law enforcement activity. Contrary to Mayor Bloomberg’s misinformation and fear- mongering, these two pieces of legislation would improve public safety in New York City. Effective policing depends on trust and collaboration between the police and the communities they serve. These two bills would help mend the divisions that currently exist, and would help keep both community members and police officers safe.

  79. Elaine M. says:

    Mike,

    Just ask Rudy Giuliani. He’ll tell you why all those white cops are needed in black neighborhoods. They gotta keep them colored thugs from killing each other.

  80. If the systems worked 1/10th of the effort at elevating (educating etc.,) the poor and down trodden, as it does finding reasons to go to war with other nations..

    our nation could then hope to return to a place where pride is justified.

    Until then, it shall remain – that white might makes right – and not being so is to be down trodden.

  81. NBC says:

    Laser: If the systems worked 1/10th of the effort at elevating (educating etc.,) the poor and down trodden, as it does finding reasons to go to war with other nations..

    Hear hear.

  82. NBC says:

    Elaine: Just ask Rudy Giuliani. He’ll tell you why all those white cops are needed in black neighborhoods. They gotta keep them colored thugs from killing each other.

    I do not believe that does justice to Giuliani’s comments and no, I am no fan of Giuliani. What he expressed poorly is something that needs to be considered as a fact, namely that crime in black neighborhoods can be one reason that there are more shootings of black innocent people.

    In other words, there are other factors that also could explain these findings. Does this mean that there is no racism component? Not at all, just that there are various explanations for the observations.

  83. NBC says:

    If the audio is in fact audio of the shooting then it shows two things: 10 shots were fired in close proximity, and they were fired in two separate batches.

    That would place doubt on some witness testimony and support the pause that various claim took place.

  84. Elaine M. says:

    Rudy Giuliani Doesn’t Understand Crime As Well As He Thinks
    The former New York City mayor doesn’t know the first thing about the intersection of race and crime.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/rudy_giuliani_doesn_t_understand_crime_the_former_new_york_city_mayor_is.html

    Excerpt:
    What makes this—and Giuliani—unserious? First are the facts of the matter. To start, homicide exists among whites—the third leading cause of death for white men (and fourth for white women) age 19 to 24 is homicide. As for “black-on-black crime,” while 90 percent of black Americans are killed by other black Americans, it’s also true that this high intragroup crime rate isn’t unique—83 percent of white Americans are killed by other white Americans. This is easy to understand. People don’t go across town to steal or kill—they commit crime against their neighbors. And in the United States, where most lives are still segregated by race, that means blacks victimize blacks, whites victimize whites, and so on. Any difference in intragroup crime owes more to levels of segregation—most whites live in places where there are some minorities, most blacks live in places where there are mostly blacks—than it does to any particular propensity for crime. And the idea that blacks don’t care is demonstrably false—black communities are saturated with messages and marches against crime. But those aren’t as interesting as, for instance, the riots in Ferguson.

    Giuliani’s other assertion—that white police only patrol black neighborhoods because of high crime rates—is also wrong. Heavy-handed policing in black neighborhoods—by predominantly white departments—goes back to the middle of the last century and was a key factor in the riots that rocked the urban landscape in the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s. More importantly, this policing predates the high crime rates that Giuliani cites as justification.

  85. NBC says:

    Elaine: MEMO TO NEWS NETWORKS: DON’T BRING ON RUDY GIULIANI TO TALK ABOUT RACE ISSUES AGAIN

    Good advice…

  86. NBC says:

    Oh and Elaine, I am not arguing that there is no racial component, I would be surprised if there was none, understanding the basic human psychology and our evolutionary burdens, which overshadow our abilities to overcome our stereotypes.

    My warning is that statements like 21 times itself can lead to biased thinking about these issues, when the actual numbers are much lower when properly corrected for confounds.

  87. NBC,

    I’m pretty sure my self-esteem has absolutely nothing to do with what you think or my eye-wear, but thanks for asking. Please feel free to continue as if you knew what you were talking about.

  88. NBC says:

    Hi Gene,
    Thanks for playing
    Hugs

    PS: Perhaps some context to your statements could help establish its relevance.

  89. It’s not too hard to get agreement that RG is not the brightest bulb in the fixture, Elaine.

  90. NBC,

    FYI, this blog allows a maximum of two links in a post, otherwise it gets fed to the filter.

  91. NBC says:

    Gene: FYI, this blog allows a maximum of two links in a post, otherwise it gets fed to the filter.

    Oops, did not know that. Will try to avoid too many links. Thanks.

  92. Bob;

    Differences of opinion are exactly that. No more and no less. IMO you act as if, your standard as an attorney at law, means your words have more weight than all other discussion by any other person who doesn’t hold your degree in Law.

    Granted – you are an attorney at law – but that doesn’t make you an expert in all facets thereof; and you certainly don’t come across as most who have sat upon the bench.

    To wit: you are speak as if you are an expert in Missou GJ’s.

    I don’t think so!

    By the way, here’s one link I found on Missou GJ’s which stipulates the following – in total. I’m of the hope that someone can find greater details; so that we can have a much better debate about actual protocol/facts.

    Click to access courtprocess.pdf

    GRAND JURY
    A grand jury replaces the preliminary
    hearing in certain cases as a method by
    which criminal charges can be filed. A grand
    jury is a panel of private citizens, chosen in
    a manner similar to the way in which trial
    juries are chosen, whose job is to look into
    allegations of criminal activity.
    The prosecutor presents evidence to the
    12 grand jurors, nine of whom must agree
    on whether a crime was committed and
    whether there is probable cause to believe
    the defendant committed it.
    As with a preliminary hearing, the case
    is either bound over to the circuit court or
    the defendant is freed.
    Grand jury proceedings are closed to the
    public. Defendants do not attend unless they
    are testifying as witnesses.

  93. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob: If the prosecutor thought he had no reasonable likelihood of a conviction, he should not have brought the case to the grand jury at all. Once he chose to bring the case to the grand jury, he should have at least attempted to present the case for an indictment – even if he’s also taking steps to ensure that self-defense is given full and adequate consideration.

    That did not happen here. The prosecution went to great lengths to present pro-defense material, including material that was so unduly prejudicial that it would likely have been subject to exclusion if the defense had attempted to bring it in as evidence at trial.

    For example (and these are examples that NBC is quite familiar with from our earlier discussions elsewhere):

    1: The prosecution spent about 30 pages of transcript worth of time questioning the lab technician who identified the contents of the bag of vegetation in Brown’s pocket as marijuana. There is a recent Missouri (2013, I believe; I can find the citation if you are interested) case that involved the review of a police officer’s manslaughter conviction for shooting into a vehicle that had struck his car and fled during a traffic stop. In that case, the court upheld the exclusion of evidence that the vehicle was stolen and contained stolen property on relevance and prejudice grounds. Wilson had no knowledge of the presence of the weed, had yet to attempt any search, and expressed no suspicion that Brown had weed.

    2: During the time the prosecution had that lab tech testifying, the prosecution decided to explore the potential effects of “waxing” marijuana with butane to get a THC concentrate. The lab tech admitted to not ever having tested pot to see if it had been waxed, and to not knowing if a test was possible. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the lack of any witness who testified that Brown had ever engaged in “waxing,” and the lack of any evidence that any “waxed” product was found on or near Brown, the prosecution engaged in a detailed discussion on how the process is used to get high-yield THC from marijuana.

    3: The prosecution subsequently had a toxicologist testify that a “massive” or “high enough” dose of THC could cause paranoid hallucinations. The definition of “massive” or “high enough” was left undefined. The toxicologist was next asked if the 12 ng/ml level was “high” (not if it was “high enough”), and the toxicologist testified that he considered it to be high, and given Brown’s body weight, must have required smoking “more than a simple joint.” (By the way, it took me all of 10 minutes to find a peer-reviewed article that showed that a 500 microgram/kilogram dose of THC would have probably resulted in 12 ng/ml blood levels 45-60 minutes or more after ingesting the pot, and about 5 more minutes to determine that someone Brown’s size would have had to smoke all of half a gram of average-quality pot to get a 500 microgram/kg dose.)

    To me, this line of “evidence” serves no apparent purpose other than setting up an implied theory that Brown’s actions can be explained by him taking too much weed and turning into the Incredible Hulk. (If you have any other idea of why this was presented, I’d love to hear it.) The secondary implication is that Brown was a hardcore weed using criminal who was trying to cram in all of the THC he could get.

    It would be one thing for me if any of this represented legitimately exculpatory evidence, but I can’t see how any of this would have gotten past Missouri’s common-law equivalent of Rule 403. The weed itself has at most an indirect connection to the stop, was something that Wilson did not suspect, and does almost nothing as far as motive to fight or flee goes, given that the convenience store incident was a potential felony, and the 1.5 g of weed barely a misdemeanor. The presence of the pot is highly prejudicial, minimally relevant, and, given recent MO precedent, almost certainly excludable. The THC-monster theory was entirely speculative, highly unlikely to be admissible, and (even if admissible) likely to be completely demolished given even marginally competent opposing counsel.

    This isn’t a prosecutor seeking justice from an unbiased presentation of relevant facts to a grand jury; this is a prosecutor presenting prejudicial and excludable material to a grand jury to favor the defendant.

    • Bob Stone says:

      Mike D.: “If the prosecutor thought he had no reasonable likelihood of a conviction, he should not have brought the case to the grand jury at all. Once he chose to bring the case to the grand jury, he should have at least attempted to present the case for an indictment – even if he’s also taking steps to ensure that self-defense is given full and adequate consideration.”

      Mike,

      That’s not so.

      As I stated earlier elsewhere:

      McCulloch used the grand jury as a safety valve. It’s not unheard of:

      “One consideration in making this determination may be that the decision to dismiss in certain cases ought to be made by the “voice of the community” rather than the voice of the DA. In this way the DA can stand behind the action of the grand jury but, at the same time, not divulge why the case was dismissed because the proceedings are secret. Doing away with the grand jury system eliminates this safety valve. The DA will then be forced to either dismiss the case on his/her own motion prior to the hearing, or risk an acquittal in the superior court.”

      http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/recent/hnygjw.htm

      Furthermore, an indicting grand jury may also be charged with responsibilities ordinarily assumed by dedicated investigative grand juries.

      The Grand Jury is designed to act as a Sword and a Shield.

      It acts as a shield against malicious prosecutions and it acts as a sword by using its investigative powers to ferret out criminals whose activities might otherwise have escaped prosecution.

  94. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D.

    I need to shift my focus back to what I’m working on at present.

    Meanwhile, you may find this Washington Post article of interest.

    The Michael Brown grand jury process was fair

    By Paul Cassell November 25

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/25/the-michael-brown-grand-jury-process-was-fair/

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “Mike D.
      I need to shift my focus back to what I’m working on at present”

      Bullshit Bob,

      You’re avoiding Mike D’s questioning of the introduction of the irrelevant marijuana evidence. The reason is because you know it was purposely prejudicial and had no bearing on the case.

  95. Bob;

    Weren’t you the one, arguing to the contrary, of GJ’s being utilized politico wise?

  96. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob: In other words, you are not going to explain how presenting the grand jury with material that is unduly prejudicial in a manner that disfavors the victim, and which would have been excluded at trial under current Missouri case law, is compatible with your assertion that the prosecutor was just “seeking justice.” Is that what I hear?

  97. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D.,

    When you say, “unduly prejudicial in a manner that disfavors the victim,” can you clarify what you mean in a criminal trial sense? An example perhaps; outside the rape shield law of course.

    And then can you tell me how that trial rule, if such exists, would be applicable in a grand jury setting ever; outside the rape shield law of course.

    N.B. Neither Mike Brown nor his family constitute “The People.”

    Gotta work.

  98. Is there a blog coin of phrase for fence hopping?

  99. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D.,

    One last thing. Although I haven’t gotten to the marijuana portions yet, I do notice the grand jurors drawing conclusions as to state of mind in walking down the middle of the street and committing a strong arm robbery.

    Did you read what I wrote about why the robbery video would be admissible at trial?

    https://flowersforsocrates.com/2014/09/11/dont-you-dare-kick-that-dog-in-defense-of-officer-wilson/

  100. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob:
    Let me make my question even more simple and explicit before answering yours: how was presenting the information about the marijuana, and particularly the information regarding the “waxing” of marijuana to get increased THC, compatible with “seeking justice,” given the utter lack of evidence of a direct connection with the incident the grand jury was supposedly investigating?

    • Bob Stone says:

      Mike D.,

      I haven’t read that portion yet. But I do know that the GJ was interested in finding out why Brown was acting the way he did; in the robbery, in the street, and with Wilson.

      It’s an investigative grand jury. Normal rules of evidence don’t apply. But it may help present “a complete and coherent picture of the events that transpired.” State v. Harris, 870 S.W.2d 798, 810 (Mo. 1994)

      And I have no idea what you meant here:

      “All the above notwithstanding, the prosecutor might offer to stipulate to the robbery in an effort to tip the probative-prejudice balance far enough toward “prejudice” for a 403 exclusion, but the odds of success would not be high.”

      I’ve read it four times and I still don’t understand what you mean.

  101. Mike Dunford says:

    I didn’t read what you wrote about the robbery video being admissible, but I don’t know that I have to, either. The video of the robbery is almost certainly relevant. There is solid evidence that Wilson was aware of the robbery, and that the description of the suspects had been transmitted. The video goes to confirming the description, which in turn helps establish the reasonableness of the initial stop. The video demonstrating the very recent crime also goes toward motive to evade arrest. It also goes to placing the confrontation in context, and could be used to show common plan. And, if all that wasn’t enough, this is a self-defense case where the defendant is asserting that the victim was the initial aggressor. Evidence of the victim’s violent character is probably admissible.

    All the above notwithstanding, the prosecutor might offer to stipulate to the robbery in an effort to tip the probative-prejudice balance far enough toward “prejudice” for a 403 exclusion, but the odds of success would not be high.

  102. Wilson’s original testimony to an ofgicer, was that he wasn’t aware of th convenience store incident.

    It changed later…

    Perhaps uf he had known, Brown would be alive today….

  103. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob:
    Agreed that normal rules of evidence don’t apply, but to me “seeking justice,” suggests that the prosecutor is agnostic as to the “correct” outcome, and wishes the grand jury to indict if indictment is appropriate, and to not indite if no indictment is appropriate. It would seem to me that under those (largely mythological) circumstances, the prosecutor might want to at least keep the relevance, character evidence, and undue prejudice rules in mind, since those are the rules that most directly attempt to ensure that the jury reaches its decision for the legally correct reasons.

    In this case, it was undisputed that Wilson shot Brown. The role of the grand jury, as defined and articulated by the prosecutors, was to determine if there was probable cause to believe that Wilson’s actions were not within the self defense or law enforcement use of force defenses. The grand jury’s role was to determine if there was probable cause to indict Wilson for a crime in connection with Brown’s death. Brown was dead; he was not the subject of the investigation. Brown’s actions were at issue to the extent that they might justify the use of lethal force against Brown, and no further. The motive or state of mind of the alleged victim of a crime is not relevant:

    “Here, the law enforcement officer is the defendant charged with a crime, and the driver of the vehicle directed toward the law enforcement officer is the alleged victim. While the state of mind of the defendant is a fact issue for the jury to determine in both cases, nothing in _Caldwell_ suggests, much less supports, that the state of mind of the alleged victim is a fact issue for the jury to determine and is therefore relevant.” _State v. Massa_, 410 S.W.3d 645, 662 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

    So, again, how is introducing evidence of the marijuana information that the grand jury would need in order to seek justice in this case?

  104. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob:
    ““All the above notwithstanding, the prosecutor might offer to stipulate to the robbery in an effort to tip the probative-prejudice balance far enough toward “prejudice” for a 403 exclusion, but the odds of success would not be high.”
    I’ve read it four times and I still don’t understand what you mean.”

    My bad, sorry. Under Federal Rule 403, evidence may be excluded if the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence. (I do know that Missouri is still a
    common law evidence state, but the standard seems to be similar there.) My thinking is that a prosecutor might try to reduce the probative weight of the video by stipulating that Brown had committed the robbery. But even then, I don’t think the prejudicial effect would substantially outweigh the probative value. In other words, I think that the video would come in.

  105. SNARK NEWS BREAK:

    This just in, school kids line up and paint their faces as unc toms, face each other as crips and bloods

    And Fergy brigade brings in tanks

    Because that break news (not) had the same amount of dispositive value as the mojo/ wax B.S.

    Nada. —- Zilch. —- Zero…

    Except! To taint the process in the same manner that GZ’s case leaks did,

    in the court of public opinion

    Because the public CAN matter

    MUCH!

  106. Mike D,

    How can the video come in, since Wilson’s first report to inquiry about tge convenience store,

    was that he was unawares?

  107. Mike Dunford says:

    I’m pretty sure there’s enough evidence to establish that he was probably aware, despite the original report. In particular, there are the radio logs which show that he asked if the units responding to the robbery needed his help. http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370609-radio-traffic.html

    Even if he didn’t know about the robbery, the video still probably comes in as evidence. There are several potential rules that apply, in particular, it could be used to show that the alleged events were part of the larger crime. It could also be used to show that Brown had a violent nature. That would usually not be allowable character evidence, but there’s an exception when the defendant is claiming self-defense, and that the victim was the initial aggressor. That exception clearly fits here. I don’t think there’s any realistic chance that the video would be excluded.

  108. How can you arbitrarily dismiss the early report. That’s bull!

    Arguably, if officer Wilson knew and suspected, he wouldn’t be ordering 2 perpetrators to get off the middle of the street. He would advise dispatch, call for back up and command the 2 ( most likely with gun drawn) To Freeze.

    Why make up crap as fact?

  109. Mike Dunford says:

    I’m just calling it like I see it.

    I’m not dismissing the early report. The fact is that while there may be some evidence that Wilson didn’t know, there is also definitely evidence that he did. The jury gets to decide which to believe. And since (like I said) the video would probably still be admissible on multiple grounds even if it was absolutely certain that Wilson didn’t know about the robbery, I don’t think there’s any way that the earlier conflicting statement would be enough to keep the video out of evidence.

  110. Well, if the professional thinker on thinking can take it personal, then I don’t feel so strange that my blood pressure gies up 20% too.

    But, I would suggest, that you bith have a glass of wine.

    For one, I think Mr. Stone’s haughtier serves the future of this blog well (We’ve much catching up to do, as JT hit 24 today).

    Secondly, I dont like seeing you upset Mike. You have to lead us here.

    Finally, blame it all on me. Bob ignores me (answer wise) cause I dont get my stuff wrenched at his lordship. I try (so that his B’ness doesnt goat me too much) too seek temperance

    Though, as I said with NBC, it is difficult to do.(Basically because bull shit spoken as defacto – is so %#@?¥€ infuriating).

    Can you tell U.S. Mike;
    Why bull shit gets our goats

    SO much?

  111. Mike D,

    I can’t concur. It is only relevant if Wilson knew. If dispatch didn’t broadcast such, prior to the initial exchange. Compounded by the early remarks impeaching (made even more morose by the total lack of transparency in subsequent protocol violated reports)

    Then it has zero dispositive value.

  112. Bob Stone says:

    It writes itself:

    Mike: ““You are 100% correct and I’ve never said that it was about the rights of the accused, You framed it in those terms because it fit your police bias. ”

    Bob: “I spent my third year in law school doing independent research of the meaning and origins of the Ninth Amendment … because of my police bias?”

    Mike: “Bob, you go from the sublime to the ridiculous. I spent MY second year of Law School getting a B+ from Mario Cuomo in Criminal Procedure (and if he had taught NYS Property Law I might have graduated) and what does that mean? You always try to resort to authority in one way or other, which leads me to suspect you are insecure.”

    ===============
    Mike,

    You accuse me of being authoritarian; yet I’m the one objecting to YOUR application of a theory of collective guilt to the judgment of an individual.

    You have charged me with basing my concern with the rights of the accused on bias rather than principle.

    Please prove to us that your ignorance of the ninth amendment is not matched by your indifference to the rights of the accused (that you happen to dislike).

    Please spell out the obvious sarcasm in the following:

    “I spent my third year in law school doing independent research of the meaning and origins of the Ninth Amendment … because of my police bias?”
    ======
    Mike: “Fuck you Bob. I keep telling you that I refuse to play your game which is to only deal with the issues you are comfortable with and ignore, in my case fail to understand, any positions with which you are uncomfortable in dealing.”

    You mock me as being ridiculous because you don’t understand the concepts behind my sarcasm and it’s fuck you Bob?

    Mike: “Where did I say that Wilson should suffer a punishment based on the “collective” guilt of the police? The answer is nowhere and I defy you to find otherwise in any of my comments.”

    This would be a quick example of Mike Spindell [not] applying a theory of collective guilt to Darren Wilson:

    Bob’s “Dog” analogy is on some level valid in that Wilson joined a police force in Ferguson, whose history was to keep the Black community under their thumb, with the notion that “these people” were somewhat less than human. The grand jury testimony backs up that the neighborhood he patrolled was seen as a “bad” one awash in “dangerous” people who needed a stern/harsh hand in control. Even if Wilson were a man of tender feelings, which I personally doubt, he was inculcated with the esprit de corps that the police were there to control this community and serve the White power structure in control. What that mindset also adds to the equation, is the belief that “its me or them” and so it better be me. Add to that the concept of the “magical negro” which I alluded to here and the opponents (Black males) are invested with the power of raging animals, which we all know need to be put down because of the threat they pose. So in a sense Wilson too was a victim here and in that context I understand where Bob is coming from. Here, however, is why I find Bob’s position in this indefensible.”

    “By narrowing the focus down to Wilson’s individual rights, Bob eschews all context.”

    That context having absolutely nothing to do with the criminal justice system.

    Whatever.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “That context having absolutely nothing to do with the criminal justice system.”

      Bob,

      That belief that the context had nothing to do with the jury system is why the jury system as constituted in this country has become an abject failure. It is also why those such as yourself can view each case in a context-less vacuum that has little to do with fairness or justice.

  113. Bob Stone says:

    Bob Stone: “When a mass of people demand that their opinion regarding the guilt of an individual should substitute for due process, e.g. a grand jury proceeding, those people become a mob seeking to impose mob rule.”

    Mike Spindell: I find your use of the words “mob” similarly offensive and barely disguised surrogates for “niggers”

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “Bob Stone: “When a mass of people demand that their opinion regarding the guilt of an individual should substitute for due process, e.g. a grand jury proceeding, those people become a mob seeking to impose mob rule.”

      Bob,
      Well now we know where you stand on such diverse American happening as the “Boston Tea Party, the Woman’s Movement, The Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-War Movement. They were all just unruly, unlawful mobs to you.

  114. That surrogate opinion is uncalled fir and inflamatory

  115. Bob Stone says:

    Bob Stone: It’s been said that law is not a search for truth but a search for process. For example, while a coerced confession from a suspect may reveal the whereabouts of a kidnapped child, the law will disallow the confession in proving the defendant’s guilt, no matter how truthful it may be. The reason the legal process disallows coerced confessions is that they will generally turn out to be false much more than true. Thus the law’s search for process serves to protect the people. Accordingly, when a mass of people demand that their opinion regarding the guilt of an individual should substitute for due process, e.g. a grand jury proceeding, those people become a mob seeking to impose mob rule.

    Mike Spindell: I find your use of the words “mob” similarly offensive and barely disguised surrogates for “niggers”

  116. “By narrowing the focus down to solely Wilson’s individual rights which would not have been affected by going to trial, Bob eschews all context.”

    There.

    That’s better.

    It’s that whole argument about concomitant rights again.

    Now tell us again that the Brown family and the citizens of Missouri aren’t “the people”, Bob.

  117. Mike Dunford says:

    laser:
    In general, a defendant who is asserting self defense is allowed to present evidence that the alleged victim had a violent character. This is considered relevant, because it supports an assertion that the alleged victim was the original aggressor. You might not like that approach, but it’s the approach that the law has taken for quite some time.

  118. Oh, and fuck you, Bob.

    Just ’cause. 😉

  119. Bob Stone says:

    “By narrowing the focus down to solely Wilson’s individual rights which would not have been affected by going to trial, Bob eschews all context.”

    There.

    That’s better.

    No it’s not.

    We did away with Trial by Ordeal hundreds of years ago.

    We don’t put people on trial just for your satisfaction Gene. And we don’t put people on trial if there is absolutely no hope of a conviction.

    Get over it.

  120. Wow, Flowers for, is having a civil war

    Too bad you guys aren,t scientists, then the mud slings could go like this

    Bob says E doesnt = Mc^€

    Mike could then say up your nutrons

    And Gene could say, the amoebas are on the loose and hD sex with a dangling paramecium partasipple

    You guys….

  121. Uh, Bob, you must mean no hope of conviction by a jury of Bob Stone peers.

    Cause, I can tell you right now that “no” hope woukd be BS if th jury were tge rest of us here.

    Whi would give much.more honor to the trial process than any exhibited in your haughty banter exhibited here.

  122. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D.,

    As you can see I got a bit distracted by someone who enjoys implying I’m a racist and dragging me into his mud.

    I took a glance at Massa and I’m not sure it’s applicable. I’m trying to remain focused on a portion of the Wilson GJ transcript at the moment; at least when I’m not forced to defend my self against defamatory statements about me being racist.

    Anyway, here’s what I wrote about the robbery video per its exculpatory value. Again, I haven’t read the portion of the GJ transcript dealing with the marijuana, but then again, it’s an investigative GJ; which is why I think they were able to call Dr. Baden.

    Anyway, I think they were looking to understand the chain of events that put Wilson in fear for his life.

    in media res

    “…the robbery is relevant to show Brown’s state of mind during the altercation with Wilson. Under Missouri Law:

    The general rule concerning the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes, wrongs, or acts is that evidence of prior uncharged misconduct is inadmissible for the purpose of showing the propensity of the defendant to commit such crimes.” State v. Bernard, 849 S.W.2d 10, 13 (Mo. banc 1993). Exceptions to the general rule provide for the admission of evidence that tends to establish motive, intent, the absence of mistake or accident, or a common plan or scheme. Id. An additional exception is recognized for evidence of uncharged crimes that are part of the circumstances or the sequence of events surrounding the offense charged. State v. Wacaser, 794 S.W.2d 190, 194 (Mo. banc 1990); State v. Flenoid, 838 S.W.2d 462, 467 (Mo.App.1992); State v. Davis, 806 S.W.2d 441, 443 (Mo.App.1991). This evidence is admissible to present a complete and coherent picture of the events that transpired. Flenoid at 467.” State v. Harris, 870 S.W.2d 798, 810 (Mo. 1994) (Emphasis added)

    See also State v. Skillicorn, 944 S.W.2d 877, 886-887 (Mo. banc 1997); State v. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d 577, 591 (Mo. 1997) (“Skillicorn notes a seventh category permitting evidence of a continuation of a sequence of events that assist in painting a coherent picture of the crime.”)

    One could argue that the strong arm robbery video is admissible under the motive exception—i.e., having just committed a felony, Brown would have motive to fight Wilson if he thought he was being arrested. But the strong arm robbery video does much more than that; it presents “a complete and coherent picture of the events that transpired,” giving us a greater understanding of how and why Officer Wilson was compelled to shoot an unarmed man.

    While the mob has adopted a fanatical policy of aniconism toward anyone that dare depict Brown as anything but an angel, the video of the strong arm robbery clearly shows Brown acting like Honey Badger™**. That belligerent attitude apparently continued in his altercation with Officer Wilson not 10 minutes later. Having just robbed a store and coming upon a police car, does Brown run? No. After striking Officer Wilson in the face while he was struggling for his sidearm, committing yet another felony, Brown flees and Wilson pursues with his gun drawn and orders him to stop. And what did Brown do with the “MOTHER MAY I RULE” in effect? Just like Honey Badger™, Brown didn’t give a shit. Brown advanced on Wilson and Wilson fired while backing away. And even with the gunfire, Brown still didn’t care because he kept coming towards Wilson for 25 feet despite being hit several times in the process. Thus Wilson, according to Josie, thought “[Brown] was on something.” Accordingly, the strong arm robbery, being nearly contemporaneous, is “evidence of a continuation of a sequence of events that assist in painting a coherent picture of the [altercation with Wilson and eventual shooting]” (Roberts at 591) thereby making it relevant and admissible.”

    https://flowersforsocrates.com/2014/09/11/dont-you-dare-kick-that-dog-in-defense-of-officer-wilson/

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “While the mob has adopted a fanatical policy of aniconism toward anyone that dare depict Brown as anything but an angel,”

      An abject and absolute lie that is using a stereotype. Also a bad contextual usage of aniconism in a weak attempt at irony.

  123. Get over that the evidence at the GJ was presented in a biased manner that equates effectively to an affirmative defense being offered anywhere other than court and by the prosecutor no less?

    Um . . .

    No.

    Bob, your initial bias toward the police was writ large by your story in the first column you wrote on Wilson. A cop did you a solid as an impressionable kid. I get that. That doesn’t mean what happened at the GJ was proper or that a trial wasn’t merited no matter how slim the chance of conviction might have been. Where you see “zero”, others see reasonable doubt greater than zero. Going to trial to finish the process in camera and with sufficient adversarial cross-examination of the parties and the evidence isn’t trial by ordeal. Wilson wasn’t going to be forced to fight a tiger or have a bridge built out him. He was going to face the due process his actions merited and either he would have been found guilty or innocent. Hyperbole much?

  124. Does Officer Wilson weigh as much as a duck?

    Inquiring minds want to know . . .

  125. Bob Stone says:

    The purpose of a grand jury is to decide whether there is probable cause to prosecute someone for a felony. Without a grand jury proceeding, or a preliminary hearing, anyone could be jailed, put on trial and incur substantial legal defense fees based on mere opinion alone. Accordingly, when a mass of people demand that their opinion regarding the guilt of an individual should substitute for due process, e.g. a grand jury proceeding, those people become a mob seeking to impose “mob rule.”

    In other words….

    “Burn him!”

  126. Bob Stone says:

    Here Mike,

    You answer his question while I finish reading part of the transcript [that you say I’m not reading]

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15630170187075859255&q=State+v.+Massa,+410+S.W.3d+645&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&as_vis=1

  127. Bob Stone says:

    Fuck it, I’m calling it a night.

  128. Nice notion, Bob, but that only works if the prosecutor presents the evidence to the grand jury in an unbiased manner. Your personal bias blinds you to the realpolitik going on even as you’ve attempted to use that lame ass excuse of “it’s a safety valve” which is really at the heart of why grand juries need either reform or to be done away with: political manipulation instead of the pursuit of equal justice. Don’t you see the cognitive dissonance in claiming the GJ serves a political function but being blind to the fairly transparent political motives McCulloch had for a data dump and hiding behind them?

    That was a rhetorical question.

  129. Bob Stone says:

    “Bob, but that only works if the prosecutor presents the evidence to the grand jury in an unbiased manner.”

    Again, since you never read the transcript I can’t take your accusation seriously.

    G’nite.

    P.S.

    Maybe you could try reading just Dorian Johnson’s testimony; i.e. the main witness.

  130. Again, you keep assuming I haven’t read the transcript.

    So fuck you, Bob. No smiley.

  131. Bob Stone says:

    Gene,

    Tell me why you think Dorian Johnson isn’t falsely accusing Wilson of murder. Tell me what you find so believable in his testimony that you read.

    And to quote Howlin Wolf’s response to Lowell George when he asked him to sign his guitar…

    “Fuck off.”

  132. However, I am willing to pay a dollar to see Wilson fight a tiger.

    That has nothing to do with this incident.

  133. Technically Bob, from an empirical standpoint, all prosecutors have tge option of bringing a party to trial

    As long as they are not taking consideration for nolle prosequi, they can stall and close as they wish.

    That being said, to argue that McCullough wasnt politically pressured to rush this to trial and/or GJ would be BS

    Our laws are the enforcement through the votes of literals (a mob elite) and put into play by tax paid for public service machinations by servants (mob) the public will allow to rule unless such rulers become tyrannical.

    Such as the 2 Penn. Judges putting youngsters in jail for the sake of kickbacks

    Sleep well…cause tomorriw may give you hell

    )

  134. Bob Stone says:

    Go ahead Mike, project your racist shadow on me some more.

    Tell me how I use the word “mob” as a surrogate for “nigger.”

    http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/race-baiting

  135. pete says:

    You don’t seem to need a surrogate for anything.

  136. Can we turn the lights off and put the kids to sleep ..Please?

    Snowball fight anyone???

  137. Bob Stone says:

    It writes itself:

    Mike: ““You are 100% correct and I’ve never said that it was about the rights of the accused, You framed it in those terms because it fit your police bias. ”

    Bob: “I spent my third year in law school doing independent research of the meaning and origins of the Ninth Amendment … because of my police bias?”

    Mike: “Bob, you go from the sublime to the ridiculous. I spent MY second year of Law School getting a B+ from Mario Cuomo in Criminal Procedure (and if he had taught NYS Property Law I might have graduated) and what does that mean? You always try to resort to authority in one way or other, which leads me to suspect you are insecure.”

    ===============
    Mike,

    You accuse me of being authoritarian; yet I’m the one objecting to YOUR application of a theory of collective guilt to the judgment of an individual.

    You have charged me with basing my concern with the rights of the accused on bias rather than principle.

    Please prove to us that your ignorance of the ninth amendment is not matched by your indifference to the rights of the accused (that you happen to dislike).

    Please spell out the obvious sarcasm in the following:

    “I spent my third year in law school doing independent research of the meaning and origins of the Ninth Amendment … because of my police bias?”
    ======
    Mike: “Fuck you Bob. I keep telling you that I refuse to play your game which is to only deal with the issues you are comfortable with and ignore, in my case fail to understand, any positions with which you are uncomfortable in dealing.”

    You mock me as being ridiculous because you don’t understand the concepts behind my sarcasm and it’s fuck you Bob?

    Mike: “Where did I say that Wilson should suffer a punishment based on the “collective” guilt of the police? The answer is nowhere and I defy you to find otherwise in any of my comments.”

    This would be a quick example of Mike Spindell [not] applying a theory of collective guilt to Darren Wilson:

    Bob’s “Dog” analogy is on some level valid in that Wilson joined a police force in Ferguson, whose history was to keep the Black community under their thumb, with the notion that “these people” were somewhat less than human. The grand jury testimony backs up that the neighborhood he patrolled was seen as a “bad” one awash in “dangerous” people who needed a stern/harsh hand in control. Even if Wilson were a man of tender feelings, which I personally doubt, he was inculcated with the esprit de corps that the police were there to control this community and serve the White power structure in control. What that mindset also adds to the equation, is the belief that “its me or them” and so it better be me. Add to that the concept of the “magical negro” which I alluded to here and the opponents (Black males) are invested with the power of raging animals, which we all know need to be put down because of the threat they pose. So in a sense Wilson too was a victim here and in that context I understand where Bob is coming from. Here, however, is why I find Bob’s position in this indefensible.”

    “By narrowing the focus down to Wilson’s individual rights, Bob eschews all context.”

    That context having absolutely nothing to do with the criminal justice system.

    Whatever.

  138. Beetle juice

    Beetle juice

    Beetle juice

    ————-

    Nothing intended, pun, fun.or otherwise.just think a lityle irreverence might mellow the full moon that.myst be glowing twilight tonite

  139. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob:
    First, I don’t know where you are getting “investigative grand jury” or what you mean by that. I can’t see anything immediately apparent in the Missouri statutes that suggests that there’s more than one kind of grand jury, and nothing in the little speech they got seems to indicate that their role differed from the role they had in the other cases – just that the case itself was different. They certainly weren’t informed that they would have any role in shaping the investigation – they were just told that they’d be given material as it was developed by the various ongoing investigations.

    Moving on to the more substantive stuff:
    So we’re clear, I agree completely with you with regard to the admissibility of the robbery video. I think that it could come in under any of a number of independent grounds. There’s no way that it’s excluded. I have zero issue with the grand jury being shown the robbery video. I also agree that Massa isn’t on point when it comes to the robbery.

    I do have an issue with the prosecutors bringing in the dime bag. Massa is absolutely on point here. In Massa, the victim was in a vehicle that turned out to be stolen, although the theft apparently had yet to be reported at the time of the incident. While the theft might seem to fit your “circumstances or sequence of events” theory, the appeals court held that the evidence that the vehicle was stolen was properly excluded, because the evidence was not relevant to any element of the charged crime or the defenses. The court specifically rejected the “motive for evading capture” argument, holding explicitly that the motive of the alleged victim in such a case is not relevant.

    I’d note that getting the marijuana in would not be a slam-dunk even if we apply your “circumstances or sequence of events” approach. (Which, again, is not the approach used in Massa.) Nevertheless, it’s going to be much harder to connect the dime bag itself with the sequence of events. At most, the dime bag goes toward a potential motive for the robbery, which in turn would connect them to the stop, which initiated the confrontation. But the connection is tangental, at best. If the motive was to get cigars to make blunts, I really don’t think there’s a lot to be gained from knowing whether the plan was to get cigars, then pot, or pot, then cigars.

    The rest of the MIMIC exceptions to bad acts evidence really aren’t in play. Massa explicitly held that the victim’s motive is not relevant, and even if the motive to resist/evade arrest was relevant, I can’t see the misdemeanor dime bag as adding a significant motive in light of the strong arm robbery. Intent and lack of mistake don’t apply, since Brown is the victim. Identification? That could get the videotape in, not the pot. Common plan? That’s covered by the circumstances/sequence thing, I think, and in any event there’s no evidence as to when/where the dime bag was picked up.

    Getting in the THC-driven monster theory is even more of a stretch as far as I’m concerned. A subjective “I thought he was on something” type remark seems like a really fragile thread to hang a scientifically and medically improbable theory on, especially when there is zero evidence that Brown ever engaged in the “waxing” practice that the prosecutors kept bringing up.

  140. If waxing is irrelevant

    So is the convenience store

    Especially given the fact that Nobody has ever testified that Wilson pulled thm over as suspects of such

    And no one has ever testified that – upon Wilson’s arrival – Brown n Johnson bolted as perpetrators on the run

  141. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D.,

    When I wrote about the video, I was defending it as relevant against those who insisted on claiming its only purpose was to smear poor Mike Brown.

    Since the rules of evidence are not applicable in a grand jury proceeding, I fail to see your concern about “doing justice.”

    Exactly what do you find out of balance? The GJ proceeding was not meant to be a mini-trial. The GJ functioned as it was meant to function; with extremely lax rules of evidence and leaving the ultimate decision whether to indict up to the community. McCulloch’s office presented all of the evidence. A seasoned GJ voted no true bill.

    Why are you playing it back as if it were a trial? Treating the GJ proceeding as if it should have resembled a trial would be injustice.

  142. Mike Dunford says:

    Laser, you are wrong on the facts and wrong on the law.

    On the facts:
    Wilson testified (pages 208-09 of Transcripts Volume 5) that shortly after the start of his contact with them it “clicked” that they were the suspects from the stealing, and that was the point when he radioed for backup and pulled his car back to stop them. The radio transcripts show that Wilson contacted dispatch to ask if the officers responding to the robbery needed his assistance, and show his call for backup shortly thereafter. You might not find that evidence to be _credible_, but credibility is generally considered to be something for the jury to assess. It’s not normally considered a reason to exclude the evidence.

    On the law:
    As I have mentioned several times now, a criminal defendant has the right to put on evidence that the alleged victim had a violent character as part of a self-defense case. The prosecution is then permitted to put on evidence of the victim’s peaceable character in rebuttal. This is a well-established exception to the general rule against character evidence. The video of Brown pushing the convenience store guy would probably be admissible on those grounds alone.

  143. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob, just now: “Since the rules of evidence are not applicable in a grand jury proceeding, I fail to see your concern about “doing justice.”.”

    I brought up justice because that is what _you_, earlier today said that McCulloch was trying to do with _this_ grand jury. “McCulloch sought justice rather than an indictment.” That was you, a little over twelve hours ago.

    I ask again: how was putting on the information about “waxing,” a practice that there was absolutely no evidence Brown had ever engaged in, compatible with McCulloch seeking justice? How was asking the toxicologist if a “massive” or “high enough” dose of THC could cause paranoid hallucinations, even though Brown’s blood THC levels were not remotely near “massive,” compatible with seeking justice? How is bringing in a lab tech for a lengthy discussion of the contents of a dime bag Wilson never knew or suspected was there consistent with seeking justice?

    I think that, had this gone to trial, there’s a good chance that Wilson both would have and should have been acquitted. I think that there’s at least a slim chance that, had the process been allowed to function without manipulation, the grand jury would still not have returned a true bill. The thing that pisses me off the most is that now we’ll never know.

  144. Mike D,

    No go guy. You quoting excrpt facts from later. HuffPo had the skinnyon the original remarks of Wilson (see Wiki)

  145. NBC says:

    Mike: I ask again: how was putting on the information about “waxing,” a practice that there was absolutely no evidence Brown had ever engaged in, compatible with McCulloch seeking justice?

    Because it was also admitted that there was no evidence that this practice was ever used nor that the concentrations found in Brown’s blood could be used to predict the effects.

    The Grand Jury is not that dumb. How is this inconsistent with seeking justice and sharing all the evidence. Note that the Grand Jury can request any and all evidence, and there are few circumstances where a court may limit the evidence.

    The testimony is of little relevance to the determination of probable cause anyway. I still am not sure why a discussion of an issue that could even have been raised by a juror causes you so much concern about justice? Because I still do not see how.

    In fact, one may argue that the testimony elicited the response that one could not determine how Brown would have reacted to the 12 nanograms/ml.

    As to the waxing, the issue was raised through testimony from the construction workers, and may have left an impression that waxing had played a role. The testimony observed that they normally test for butane even though it is highly volatile. They observed that no butane was found. No evidence for waxing, no evidence that the construction workers had provided Mike with waxing materials.

    Mostly a non issue but so was presenting witnesses who were quite prejudicial towards Wilson and whose testimony was quite unreliable.

  146. NBC says:

    You still insist on manipulation where your expectations are that the prosecutor attempts to indict rather than to find justice. The role of the prosecutor in the Grand Jury proceedings is quite different to the role during a petit jury proceeding.

  147. And the guy who killed someone, getting the extraordinary chance to testify to a GJ for hours; you are really going to type upon U.S. that his telltale isn’t prejudicial?

    That he couldn’t possibly have any motive to be less than credible…

    Really?

  148. NBC says:

    Laser: And the guy who killed someone, getting the extraordinary chance to testify to a GJ for hours; you are really going to type upon U.S. that his telltale isn’t prejudicial?

    How is it prejudicial to hear all the evidence. He would have had the same right in front of a magistrate during a preliminary hearing, so I am not too concerned here. It may be unusual but the Fed Manual for Prosecuting Attorneys suggests that if defendants are willing to testify they should be given the opportunity, even though there is no statutory right.

    Seems like a wise decision.

    Laser: That he couldn’t possibly have any motive to be less than credible…

    On the contrary, Anyone would assume that he, like any other, would provide the grand jury with most favorable evidence and statements.

    By allowing him to testify, they were able to test his claims against physical evidence and eye witness testimony.

    Shocking is it not?…

    Do you think that people should not be allowed to appear in front of a grand jury? How does this reconcile with your claimed interest in justice?

  149. NBC says:

    As to the Federal Grand Jury, not the same as this one but it shows a good role model:

    Requests by Subjects and Targets to Testify Before the Grand Jury

    It is not altogether uncommon for subjects or targets of the grand jury’s investigation, particularly in white-collar cases, to request or demand the opportunity to tell the grand jury their side of the story. While the prosecutor has no legal obligation to permit such witnesses to testify, United States v. Leverage Funding System, Inc., 637 F.2d 645 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 961 (1981); United States v. Gardner, 516 F.2d 334 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 861 (1976)), a refusal to do so can create the appearance of unfairness. Accordingly, under normal circumstances, where no burden upon the grand jury or delay of its proceedings is involved, reasonable requests by a “subject” or “target” of an investigation, as defined above, to testify personally before the grand jury ordinarily should be given favorable consideration, provided that such witness explicitly waives his or her privilege against self-incrimination, on the record before the grand jury, and is represented by counsel or voluntarily and knowingly appears without counsel and consents to full examination under oath.
    Such witnesses may wish to supplement their testimony with the testimony of others. The decision whether to accommodate such requests or to reject them after listening to the testimony of the target or the subject, or to seek statements from the suggested witnesses, is a matter left to the sound discretion of the grand jury. When passing on such requests, it must be kept in mind that the grand jury was never intended to be and is not properly either an adversary proceeding or the arbiter of guilt or innocence. See, e.g., United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974)

  150. White collar cases! You are juxtaposing your banter now. What does white collar have to do with homicide GJ issues?

    I’m bowing out now. Your not even making sense to yourself (unless of course..you are getting paid for each word you blog)

    Sleep well…,,

  151. Mike Dunford says:

    Laser: “Mike D, No go guy. You quoting excrpt facts from later. HuffPo had the skinnyon the original remarks of Wilson (see Wiki)”

    I was referring directly to the materials that were provided to the grand jury, and to the transcript of Wilson’s testimony. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.html
    There were multiple lines of evidence presented to the grand jury that Wilson knew about the robbery at the time of the confrontation. You may not like that the grand jury heard this evidence, you may not believe this evidence, and you may think that the evidence should not have been presented to the grand jury. Those are opinions, and you are entitled to your own opinions. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts.

  152. eniobob says:

    Well folks not much to see on this regarding the Eric Garner grand jury:

    ” The release of material by Staten Island Supreme Court Judge Stephen Rooney offered no real insights into how the panel reached its decision not to indict NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo in the fatal arrest.

    The release was made on the request of Staten Island District Attorney Daniel Donovan “in the interest of assuring the public that the relevant evidence was presented” to the grand jury, Rooney wrote.

    The disclosed details, some already public knowledge, were that:

    — The grand jury sat for nine weeks and heard from 50 witnesses, including 22 civilians.

    — Sixty exhibits were admitted into evidence, including four videos, crime scene photographs, four videos, medical records, autopsy photos and records pertaining to NYPD training.

    — The grand jury was instructed on relevant principles of law, including use of physical force by a police officer making an arrest.

    — The grand jury followed the proper procedure in reaching its decision of not charges.”

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/eric-garner-grand-jury-evidence-public-thursday-article-1.2033065

  153. NBC says:

    Laser: I’m bowing out now. Your not even making sense to yourself (unless of course..you are getting paid for each word you blog)

    No just for every error I spot in your claims. Needless to say I am close to retirement.

    The question was about the defendant testifying to the Grand Jury. The Fed Rules for example show that this should be allowed.

    I know, those pesky facts again

    • Bob Stone says:

      NBC & Mike Dunford,

      I’d like to thank you both for your insightful analysis of the facts and evidence of the case.

      And Mike D., NBC pretty much summed up my thoughts about the THC inquiry being a non-dispositive matter in the GJ setting.

  154. NBC says:

    Mike: There were multiple lines of evidence presented to the grand jury that Wilson knew about the robbery at the time of the confrontation.

    Yep, the sergeant’s testimony, Wilson’s interviews, Wilson’s testimony, the dispatcher and the transcript of the radio calls.

    Perhaps Laser is not aware that these documents are available.

  155. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob/NBC:
    I think you are either missing my point entirely, or making it for me, and I’m not sure which. The grand jury’s task, as far as I can tell from the grand jury transcripts, was to determine if there was probable cause to indict Wilson for a crime in connection with Brown’s death. That’s the task mentioned in the initial and final remarks, and that message was reinforced throughout the proceedings.

    Under the circumstances of the case, given that there was no doubt that Brown died as a result of being shot by Wilson, the probable cause inquiry boiled down to a determination of whether there was probable cause to believe that the shooting was not justified. That’s the standard that was presented to the grand jury.

    Why, then, did the prosecutor present so much material about Brown’s drug use, and in particular why did the prosecutor spend so much time on the subject of waxing. I’d have to add pages to be sure, but it looks very much to me like the prosecutor chose to spend AT LEAST as much time on the subject of Brown’s marijuana use as was spent questioning Officer Wilson.

    I would very much like to see one or both of you address the following question:
    What specific purpose (and when I say specific I am referring to something more than “truth seeking” arm waving) do you think the prosecutor had in spending so much time on Brown’s drug use?

    • Bob Stone says:

      Mike D.,

      Again, I haven’t read the portion of the transcript that you’re referring to.

      Let me ask you this; which part of the GJ transcript do you consider to be the most crucial? Which part has the most gravity; so that most of the other parts constellate around it?

      The marijuana portion?

  156. NBC says:

    Mike: I would very much like to see one or both of you address the following question:
    What specific purpose (and when I say specific I am referring to something more than “truth seeking” arm waving) do you think the prosecutor had in spending so much time on Brown’s drug use?

    First of all, the presence of THC was a fact obtained from the toxicology report. This could have tainted the jury’s perception of Brown, thus asking questions if the amount could predict how Brown would have reacted seems rather relevant. As far as I can remember, the outcome of that inquiry was that they could not predict how a person like Brown would have acted with 12 nanograms/ml of THC in his blood.
    The testimony of the construction workers had raised the issue of waxing, again something that could have been prejudicial to Brown. Asking and establishing that there is 1) no evidence that the construction workers supplied Brown with waxing materials 2) that there was no evidence found to support waxing, laid to rest such concerns.

    We may also not know if the issues were raised because of concerns/questions from the jurors. I will see what the record has to say about that, once I finish OCRing all the documents.

  157. Mike Dunford says:

    Actually, NBC, the lab tech testified about waxing (which the lab tech was not qualified to do) before the construction worker testified. And then at least the toxicologist, and I think maybe one other technical witness testified about it. I believe the prosecutors were the first to raise the issue with each witness. And while the witnesses did testify that they found no evidence of waxing, most of them also provided testimony that was essentially that they would not have expected to find evidence, and/or did not know if evidence could be found.

  158. NBC says:

    Mike: Actually, NBC, the lab tech testified about waxing (which the lab tech was not qualified to do) before the construction worker testified.

    Ok, it had been brought up or was going to be brought up in their examination. They could have recalled the witness or address it pre-emptively. I need to look at the grand jury documents to get a better understanding of who testified when.

  159. NBC says:

    Document 24, the last one

    A During the course of the investigation, obviously, it is an evolving investigation and we’ve we’re learned things on a daily basis. If I can go back in time to when we were contacting Dorian Johnson.
    Q And that would have been on the 13th?
    A Yes, ma’am. So during the course of Dorian Johnson’s interview, he talked about speaking with, he didn’t mention them by name, and . And during the interview with Dorian Johnson he made reference to and talking with Michael Brown about marijuana and about waxing.

    I had no idea what waxing was. We later learned that waxing delivers essentially a high concentration of THC to an individual in a very short period of time. So THC is the active ingredient in marijuana.
    That didn’t necessarily mean much to me until we learned from the autopsy report that Michael Brown had THC in his system and we learned that after speaking with Dr. from the St. Louis County Medical Examiner’s Office, that his level was elevated to the point where it could have potentially caused a loss in perception of space and time and there was also the possibility that there could have been hallucinations. He couldn’t say that for sure, but that is a potential effect of high levels of THC in an individual.
    So knowing that waxing delivers a high level of THC to an individual in a relatively short period of time and knowing that from Dorian Johnson, Michael Brown had had conversations with
    and about waxing, we thought it worth exploring the possibility that either gave, or provided, or sold wax to Michael Brown. And if that was the case, it could have potentially explained some of the behavior that we witnessed from Michael Brown on the audio, I’m sorry on the video at the Ferguson Market and help explain some of the things taking place in this particular incident.

    Q All right. Now, had either or in their first two statements to County Police said anything about having discussions with Michael Brown about waxing?
    A No

    We, obviously, have an obligation to get to the truth to some extent and part of that is pressing people to see if they’re really telling us the truth.
    Q But it is true, isn’t it, Detective, that throughout your interview or interrogation of these two men, neither one of them ever admitted or said that they have been in any way involved in providing controlled narcotics to Michael Brown or Dorian Johnson; is that true?
    A Yes, that’s correct.
    Q And your investigation has failed to find any information otherwise; is that true?
    A That’s true.

  160. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC, quoting final volume of transcript:
    “That didn’t necessarily mean much to me until we learned from the autopsy report that Michael Brown had THC in his system and we learned that after speaking with Dr. from the St. Louis County Medical Examiner’s Office, that his level was elevated to the point where it could have potentially caused a loss in perception of space and time and there was also the possibility that there could have been hallucinations. He couldn’t say that for sure, but that is a potential effect of high levels of THC in an individual.”

    So here’s the interesting thing about this: nobody from the St. Louis County ME’s Office actually testified to the grand jury that Brown’s level was elevated to the point where it could have potentially caused those things. In fact, the toxicologist rather neatly avoided testifying to that. What the toxicologist testified to is that a “high enough” dose or “massive” dose could lead to those things, but there was never any explicit testimony that the toxicologist felt that the dose in Brown fell into those levels. I also did not see any testimony where the toxicologist said he had told the police this. The detective, testifying very shortly before the grand jury deliberations testified that he had been told something that was not actually offered into evidence when the person who allegedly told him that testified.

    (By the way, this kind of bullshit is exactly why there are hearsay rules.)

    Here’s another interesting thing: I can’t find any single peer reviewed article that would suggest that 12 ng/ml is generally considered to be a “high” level. In the paper I found when prepping the cross examination sample, they reported levels shortly after smoking of nearly 100 ng/ml – and that was a study of impairment effects on well subjects, so you can be pretty sure that was not considered to be very risky. There is literally zero evidence I can find that a 12 ng/ml level would create any more risk of paranoid hallucinations than you would see with any intake at all. Yet, again, they are leaving the impression that the levels Brown had created an elevated risk.

  161. Mike Dunford says:

    Oh, and here’s another interesting thing. As soon as the ME hired by the family said this:
    “So toxicology, everything it has and everything it doesn’t have has significance, and in this instance, I think marijuana is significant that he smoked marijuana, but 99 out of 100 people taking marijuana aren’t going to get in a fight with a police officer over it in my experience.”

    The prosecutor immediately jumped in with this line of questioning:
    MS. ALIZADEH: Can I just clarify something here, Doctor, your credentials are as a forensic pathologist, although you have a working understanding of toxicology, you are not a toxicologist, correct?
    A: No.
    MS. ALIZADEH: You’re not a toxicologist?
    A No, that’s correct.
    MS. ALIZADEH: You are not a pharmacologist?
    A That’s correct.

    This line of questioning runs for another page or two. It’s a classic example of what’s known in the trade as impeachment testimony. The prosecution’s toxicologist had provided rather vague testimony that implied without actually providing any risk estimates that Brown had blood levels high enough to cause him to go nuts. The medical examiner hired by the victim’s family had just said that 99 out of 100 people on pot won’t go nuts (an estimate that I suspect was colloquial rather than mathematical, since the ME would only know that the prosecution had been making a big deal about the fantastical possibility of THC-induced paranoid hallucinations if the prosecutor had told him that); the prosecutor immediately steps in to reduce the impact and credibility of that testimony.

  162. NBC says:

    Mike: This line of questioning runs for another page or two. It’s a classic example of what’s known in the trade as impeachment testimony.

    Impeachment testimony was used several times. I see nothing truly objectionable about this. The prosecutor’s job in the Grand Jury is to get to the truth, not to indict.

  163. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC: The prosecutor is attempting to impeach the witness who just told the jury that there is very little chance that Brown’s behavior was caused by pot – a line of testimony that you have, as I recall, previously cited as an example of the prosecutor bringing in evidence that was not favorable to the THC Monster theory. Are you even trying to remain consistent at this point?

  164. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D.,

    Why do you emphasize THC evidence? The way I’m reading this so far, it’s the physical evidence failing to support a certain narrative of events; regardless of any THC evidence.

  165. NBC says:

    Mike: NBC: The prosecutor is attempting to impeach the witness who just told the jury that there is very little chance that Brown’s behavior was caused by pot – a line of testimony that you have, as I recall, previously cited as an example of the prosecutor bringing in evidence that was not favorable to the THC Monster theory. Are you even trying to remain consistent at this point?

    So in the end there was not much to the testimony at all?

    Bob: Why do you emphasize THC evidence? The way I’m reading this so far, it’s the physical evidence failing to support a certain narrative of events; regardless of any THC evidence.

    Yeah.

  166. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob: I emphasize the THC because I think it’s the clearest example of the prosecution making decisions that seem inexplicable unless they were actively seeking to ensure that the grand jury returned no true bill. It’s an entire line of evidence that the prosecution spent quite a bit of time developing for the grand jury, through the use of multiple witnesses. And yet I can not see any real evidence that there was any relevance to the case. (And, I’d note, both you and NBC have conceded that the evidence has at most minimal relevance.)

    The THC and marijuana is evidence that a defense attorney would try to have admitted because of the prejudicial effect, and it’s evidence that a trial court would likely refuse to admit because of the prejudicial effects. I can think of no other concrete, plausible reason to present this information to the grand jury, and neither you nor NBC has suggested one.

    The THC is far from the only part of the presentation that I find difficult to comprehend, but it is the clearest example. But there are others. For another example:

    Why is there no diagram showing the positions of Wilson and Brown when the first shot was fired, based on analysis of the trajectory of the bullet found in the door of the Tahoe. (Or at least if there is NBC hasn’t found it yet.) Given the track of the bullet entering the door, that’s something that could have been done through the highly challenging and technical “put-a-stick-in-the-hole” method of ballistic analysis. That could have limited the position of the firearm to some point along a single line. On similar lines, has anyone seen a diagram matching the hole in the building wall with the SUV?

    Look, like I’ve said, I could have seen an acquittal as a legitimate outcome of this case. I might even have been able to see the grand jury returning no true bill as legitimate, were it not for these transcripts. They read like I’d expect if Brown was on trial, or as if the attorneys orchestrating the proceedings were there to defend Wilson. This is what pisses me off, not the outcome.

    • Bob Stone says:

      Mike D.,

      Again, I haven’t read the Marijuana portion yet.

      But regarding your question…

      “[a] grand jury’s investigation is not fully carried out until every available clue has been run down and all witnesses examined in every proper way to find if a crime has been committed . . . .” United States v. Stone, 429 F.2d 138, 140. See also Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 392 . As the Court recalled last Term, “Because its task is to inquire into the existence of possible criminal conduct and to return only well-founded indictments, its investigative powers are necessarily broad.” Branzburg v. Hayes, supra, at 688.

      A grand jury has broad investigative powers to determine whether a crime has been committed and who has committed it. The jurors may act on tips, rumors, evidence offered by the prosecutor, or their own personal knowledge. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S., at 701

      UNITED STATES v. DIONISIO, 410 U.S. 1 (1973)

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=1

      • Mike Spindell says:

        “Again, I haven’t read the Marijuana portion yet.”

        Bob,
        Strange aren’t you the one castigating people for not reading the transcript and you haven’t read the section where a prejudicial non-dispostive line of questioning was introduced by the ADA to cast an impression on the jurors of who Michael Brown was. I guess that is he result of initially deciding to support Officer Wilson and lacking interest in anything that might have been done to prejudice the case in his favor.

  167. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC: Same question to you as to Bob – and it’s one I’ve asked repeatedly, and it’s one you have not answered. If the THC evidence wasn’t being presented for its prejudicial value, for what concrete reason was the evidence presented?

  168. But may jurors act upon bias?

  169. Bob Stone says:

    “But may jurors act upon bias?”

    Don’t they always? Isn’t that the reason you have “jury consultants” for petit juries?

  170. Slartibartfast says:

    Laser said:

    Wow, Flowers for, is having a civil war

    Too bad you guys aren,t scientists, then the mud slings could go like this

    Bob says E doesnt = Mc^€

    Mike could then say up your nutrons

    And Gene could say, the amoebas are on the loose and hD sex with a dangling paramecium partasipple

    You guys….

    Laser,

    Scientists don’t really talk like that.

    Just sayin’…

    Although Bob has certainly had issues with understanding the concept of energy before.

    Bob,

    Bet Mike’s quote from Hunter S Thompson stings a little. But even you have to admit that HST would have been in favor of waxing, right?

    NBC,

    Sorry to take so long getting back to you—been a busy couple of days. As regards rights, if you followed my conversation with Scratch on the Fogbow, then you know that I believe that rights are meaningless unless there exists some mechanism to enforce them. So what rights does the function of the grand jury protect? It is part of the due process that Mr. Wilson is entitled to, but he has no rights that are violated by any legitimate result from the grand jury (he can’t be forced to testify against himself and he isn’t entitled to a no bill (or at least he shouldn’t have been).

    On the other hand, while Mr. Brown doesn’t formally have rights in the process, one of its functions is clearly to support his right to equal protection under the law. This is accomplished by the prosecutor acting in the interests of the people by punishing those who violate the rights of other people (or the laws of the country). The purpose of all of this is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to indict. Well, as I’m sure Bob will tell you, I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that this means that their mandate is to determine if there is a “theory of the crime” which is consistent with the evidence. In other words, it is possible, given the evidence which the grand jury examined, that a crime was committed? This has nothing to do with what, if any, scenarios the evidence supports or whether or not it is sufficient to obtain a conviction. The grand jury doesn’t need to consider these things because the are already handled elsewhere in the process. Since the prosecutor, in general, has an incentive to get convictions, not indictments, the prosecutor’s right to decide whether or not to bring a case to the grand jury provides a check against frivolous prosecution and the rights of the accused in a trial protects the defendant from being punished without evidentiary support.

    As Mike D pointed out, attorneys in this country are taught to present evidence as advocates of a certain person, group or position. While it isn’t written into the law, it is implicit in how the grand jury functions that the prosecutor will be the one seeking an indictment and thus will make his presentation accordingly as, under normal circumstances, his desire for convictions makes all of the checks and balances operate correctly.

    The problem is what happens when, instead of getting a conviction, the prosecutor only wishes to protect his dog while shirking his duty to protect the people from rabid dogs?

    In a word: Ferguson.

    Unless you can give me a 100% objective answer, there is one question that opens the door to the possibility of a crime regardless of what happened before and after: What was Mr. Wilson’s justification for taking the 3rd shot?

    Mr. Wilson was no longer acting in fear of his life, nor was there any immanent risk of harm to others, so why did he fire on a barefoot, fleeing teenager who he was presumably quickly catching up with?

    While I can come up with several criminal motives for this act, I’m not seeing any justification for a law enforcement officer to have opened fire.

  171. Mike Dunford says:

    Again, Bob, you have not answered a very simple question: what concrete reason did the prosecutors have for presenting so much THC material to the grand jury?

    Arm waving about the broad investigatory powers of the grand jury doesn’t get you much here. This is not material that the grand jury went looking for (in fact, there’s no evidence that the grand jury went looking for anything). The prosecution brought this material to the grand jury, and questioned these witnesses. They were not reluctant witnesses being questioned under grand jury subpoena power; they were witnesses that the prosecutors had worked with, and who appeared voluntarily.

    Why did the prosecution think it was important to put this material before this grand jury?

  172. A petit jury has a judge to reign them in and adverse counsel capable of moving to strike. There are also limits on voir dire to limit the ability to stack petit juries.

    A grand jury does not.

    • Bob Stone says:

      Gene,

      And water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius.

      But that obvious point isn’t relevant to the discussion either.

  173. So you are saying it is okay to bias a grand jury. Is that correct?

  174. Bob Stone says:

    I’m saying that an argument from ignorance, of the transcript, is unpersuasive.

  175. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D.,

    That’s not arm waving; that’s a reminder that you’re attempting to complain about proper dining etiquette in the procedural equivalent of a feeding trough.

  176. You mean like the one you make when you ignore the biasing going on?

  177. Bob Stone says:

    “But even you have to admit that HST would have been in favor of waxing, right?”

    I still don’t even know what it is.

  178. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob: “That’s not arm waving; that’s a reminder that you’re attempting to complain about proper dining etiquette in the procedural equivalent of a feeding trough.”

    And, again, you do not answer what should really be a very simple question: why did the prosecution think it was important to put the THC material before this grand jury? What specific element of the crime or defense is it relevant to?

  179. Wax is a concentrated marijuana distillate, Bob.

  180. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D.,

    I don’t know. Because in light of certain testimony, the THC evidence is simply the kitchen sink added atop an inevitable conclusion of no true bill.

  181. Interesting reply.

    You don’t see the truck sized hole you just drove through the heart of your argument about there not being any bias, do you Bob?

  182. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob,

    “Waxing” is the smoking of “wax” or hash oil (easily made using butane and plant material). It is a very concentrated form of marijuana (not just THC, it has other cannabinoids as well) and Hunter would have loved it.

  183. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob: “I don’t know. Because in light of certain testimony, the THC evidence is simply the kitchen sink added atop an inevitable conclusion of no true bill.”

    That’s not a concrete reason, Bob. What legitimate reason would the prosecution have for presenting that material to the grand jury? If you think it was the “kitchen sink,” I would hope you have an actual, legally relevant reason in mind.

  184. blouise says:

    BTW …Was there a toxicology report on Wilson? Some jurisdictions require it in an officer involved shooting.

  185. Mike Dunford says:

    There was, and it was clean.

  186. NBC says:

    Gene: A grand jury does not.

    They serve different purposes. There are few limitations to the Grand Jury examining witnesses and/or evidence.

    There can and always will be some bias in testimony. Johnson is more likely to place Brown and himself in better light, others seem to have testified with no attention to the physical evidence, which left their testimony in shambles.

    The THC evidence was helpful in establishing that the concentrations found could not easily be translated into actions or behavior by Brown. In the end the issue was mostly irrelevant.

    I still do not think people fully comprehend the differences between the task of the grand versus petit jury and the role of the prosecutor.

    In this case, all evidence was presented, and the ADA’s established through their questioning the relevance of testimony. They did a good job pointing out the lack of expertise by ‘experts’ in areas they were testifying to. A good prosecutor is duty bound to point this out during a grand jury proceeding where he/she acts also as a legal advisor to the Grand Jury.

  187. blouise17 says:

    Thanx

  188. But he “doesn’t know”, Mike D.

    He knows that some drugged Magic Negro might have been trying to hurt his dog so that merits giving said dog a pass on consequences for killing said drugged Magic Negro.

  189. NBC says:

    Mike: Why did the prosecution think it was important to put this material before this grand jury?

    I have already tried to help you understand. While the overall motive is likely to have been the statement that they would present all evidence, your question has subtly shifted to subjective interpretations of ‘why so much’?

    HTC was detected in the body and its relevance needed to be addressed. In the end it showed that a single joint could explain it, that the amount cannot predict how the person responds, and that no evidence of waxing was found. I still fail to see the relevance of this minor and mostly irrelevant testimony. You appear to believe that it somehow shows some evidence of bias? I do not get that impression. In the end, I believe a reasonable person would conclude that the marijuana evidence was irrelevant.

    Did it need to be addressed? Yes, it could have prejudiced the victim and it could have served as exculpatory evidence and thus it is important to explore the issue sufficiently for the jury to draw its own conclusions.

    The whole goal of this exercise was to take, as much as possible, the prosecutor out of the equation. And while some believe that it was the duty of the prosecutor to indict, I believe that the more proper role during the grand jury is to advise the grand jury, examine witnesses, provide legal advice all to ensure that justice is served. Getting an indictment is secondary to this, as it should be.

  190. Still not grasping that whole “how you present” is as important as “what you present”, are you NBC? Or relevance. And seriously, don’t presume to lecture me about the proper roles of any component of the legal system. I actually am a lawyer and don’t just play one on the Internet.

    The purpose of illustrating the difference in the forms of jury was to highlight that bias is improper and to be minimized, not accented, and that the grand jury lacking the procedural safeguards present in a petit jury is inherently easier to bias. The primary goal of seeking justice is seeking remedy that is impartial and equitable, both of which demand the minimization (ideally elimination) of bias. There is a reason the symbol for justice is a scale and not a weight.

  191. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D. “If you think it was the “kitchen sink,” I would hope you have an actual, legally relevant reason in mind.”

    Mike,
    I’m saying again that I did not read that portion of the transcript. Having not read it, unlike others here, I cannot render an honest opinion. I offer my remarks only in response to the information I’ve gleaned from your comments.

    You never answered my question though. What testimony and evidence do you feel the entire case against Wilson constellates around?

  192. Bob,

    You continue to ignore both the demonizing language and the drug evidence as biasing. I don’t think you personally are a racist. I just don’t think you are seeing the transcripts as others see them because of your inherent (and admitted) bias toward cops. The rest is simply mockery.

    And I would never do something like that, would I?

    And I never use sarcasm.

    :mrgreen:

  193. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC: So now the prosecution’s impeachment of the witness whose testimony you previously praised as for helping the grand jury see how weak the THC material was is an example of the prosecution “doing a good job pointing out the lack of expertise” of that very witness. Yet neither you nor the prosecutors seem to have been troubled by the utter lack of relevant expertise of the lab tech they had testify about waxing earlier. Why is that?

    More importantly, you continue to dodge what should be a very simple question: why did the prosecution think it was important to put the THC material before this grand jury? What specific element of the crime or defense is it relevant to?

  194. Bob Stone says:

    I’m Bush v. Gore angry Gene.

  195. Bob Stone says:

    Goodnight Austin Texas; wherever you are.

  196. Bob Stone says:

    “I just don’t think you are seeing the transcripts as others see them because of your inherent (and admitted) bias toward cops.”

    Cops have nothing to do with it at this point Gene. This is all about spotting discrepancies and being angry at liars.

  197. NBC says:

    Gene: He knows that some drugged Magic Negro might have been trying to hurt his dog so that merits giving said dog a pass on consequences for killing said drugged Magic Negro.

    Totally uncalled for. You are now putting words in his mouth that do not reflect accurately what Bob has been saying. If anything, your language shows you quite biased and unable to accept Bob’s very reasonable position that if Wilson was attacked by Brown, then Brown was justified in killing.

    And the use of the term ‘magic negro’ as if it reflects Bob’s position is even more disgusting and outrageous.

  198. NBC says:

    Mike Dunford: More importantly, you continue to dodge what should be a very simple question: why did the prosecution think it was important to put the THC material before this grand jury? What specific element of the crime or defense is it relevant to?

    I already gave you my answer. But now you are limiting the choice of possibilities when you already know that it was relevant to address the THC presence in Brown’s blood as well as testimony from Johnson about waxing, made to the FBI and which was listened to in its fulle 2+ hours length by the jurors.
    At a minimum, it serves to lay to rest jurors jumping to conclusions that Wilson was justified in shooting Brown because he was ‘high’, when the evidence is insufficient to draw any such conclusions.

    Is this really so hard to understand?

  199. NBC says:

    Gene: Still not grasping that whole “how you present” is as important as “what you present”, are you NBC? Or relevance. And seriously, don’t presume to lecture me about the proper roles of any component of the legal system. I actually am a lawyer and don’t just play one on the Internet.

    Lawyers may have grown very comfortable with how the legal system has evolved but “I am an expert and you are not” is known as a logical fallacy. If you disagree with me, then you take the time and effort to formulate a mature and reasoned response.

    Gene: The primary goal of seeking justice is seeking remedy that is impartial and equitable, both of which demand the minimization (ideally elimination) of bias.

    And yet, there are those who argue that the grand jury should not have seen all evidence, that the prosecutor should have pushed for an indictment more than acting in its more important role as being an advisor to the Grand Jury.

    People will always find some reason or another to complain about what they see as bias. I can accept that. What I cannot accept is just broad claims about the how versus what. Would you have preferred that the prosecutor had argued more strongly in favor of indictment? How does that reconcile with your stated goal of impartial and equitable?

    The ADA’s were quite consistent and careful in the presentation of their witnesses, their interviews, those who interviewed them, then the witnesses. They even included “witnesses” whose testimony was clearly prejudicial to Wilson and could not possible be reconciled with the evidence.

    it was a give and take on all sides. Have you started reading the transcripts and interviews? Perhaps you can be more specific about details. Of course, many of the details need to be seen in the larger picture as the ADAs and the Grand Jurors often revisited issues for clarifications or questions.

    Specifics…

  200. No, NBC, it’s not a logical fallacy to appeal to authority when you or the party appealed to are actually an authority.

    If you have problems understanding how spin and messaging works, I suggest reading the Propaganda Series listed in the masthead. You can tell someone to eat a shit sandwich and if you tell them the right way, they’ll smile and ask for seconds.

  201. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC: “The whole goal of this exercise was to take, as much as possible, the prosecutor out of the equation. And while some believe that it was the duty of the prosecutor to indict, I believe that the more proper role during the grand jury is to advise the grand jury, examine witnesses, provide legal advice all to ensure that justice is served. Getting an indictment is secondary to this, as it should be.”

    This is so much rank nonsense. As you have been told, and as I’m sure the practicing attorneys here will confirm, American attorneys are not trained to take themselves out of the equation. Judges, maybe, arbitrators, maybe, but not attorneys. It’s not part of the skill set. The attorneys who presented the case to the grand jury were prosecutors. One, at least, was the duty prosecutor for the next homicide case when the shooting occurred, and presumably has fairly substantial trial experience. The attorney who had been shepherding the grand jury probably had less, but not insubstantial experience. These are attorneys whose fundamental training is to advocate. They are trained to shape questions to advocate for a position. They are trained to examine witnesses to advocate for a position. They are trained to present physical evidence to advocate a position. They are not trained to do otherwise, and have no experience doing otherwise.

    NBC:
    “HTC was detected in the body and its relevance needed to be addressed. In the end it showed that a single joint could explain it, that the amount cannot predict how the person responds, and that no evidence of waxing was found. I still fail to see the relevance of this minor and mostly irrelevant testimony. You appear to believe that it somehow shows some evidence of bias? I do not get that impression. In the end, I believe a reasonable person would conclude that the marijuana evidence was irrelevant.”

    No, NBC. I showed that that there is ample scientific research demonstrating that a single joint could explain it. The prosecution toxicologist testified clearly, explicitly, incorrectly, and without contradiction that Brown must have consumed more than a single joint to attain his “high” level of THC. The same toxicologist testified that you can’t directly predict how an amount will affect an individual, but also that “high enough” or “massive” doses can cause paranoia and hallucinations which could lead to the outburst. The family ME testified that you cannot predict how any particular amount would affect someone, but that it was highly unlikely (99 out of 100) that the marijuana wouldn’t lead to a violent outburst. The prosecutors promptly impeached that testimony, pointing the jurors back to their toxicologist in the process. Then the final witness – the detective – testified (via clear hearsay) that they had started to investigate waxing because the same toxicologist had told them that Brown’s levels were high enough to have potentially caused the incident. (Something, again, that the toxicologist had not actually testified to.)

    Yes, this is evidence of bias. They presented the evidence so as to maximize the impression that Brown’s THC was a plausible (if not likely) explanation for Brown’s alleged actions, and took steps to minimize the impact of anything that contradicted this theory. This is a textbook example of how a competent attorney can advocate for a particular position without making it blatantly apparent that they are doing so.

    NBC: “Did it need to be addressed? Yes, it could have prejudiced the victim and it could have served as exculpatory evidence and thus it is important to explore the issue sufficiently for the jury to draw its own conclusions.”

    How could this have served as exculpatory evidence, NBC? You’ve already conceded that you see very little evidence to it, and you have yet to explain what element of either a crime or affirmative defense the THC addresses in any way.

  202. NBC says:

    Mike: Strange aren’t you the one castigating people for not reading the transcript and you haven’t read the section where a prejudicial non-dispostive line of questioning was introduced by the ADA to cast an impression on the jurors of who Michael Brown was.

    I read it exactly the opposite. Prejudicial evidence was introduced at all levels, that is no concern to me at this time when the Grand Jury is doing is job to examine the evidence. In the end, there was nothing much prejudicial about the whole issue, just like the testimony by those who changed their tune, or who testified in contradiction with known facts, was prejudicial and yet irrelevant in the end.

    In the end, the evidence just was not there for the jury to indict. They considered the witness statements, the physical evidence, and the physical evidence I believe just does not support the story by Johnson.
    It can be reconciled with them by realizing that some of them entered the situation at certain points where Brown had fallen on his knees, or when he had turned around.

    What decided it for me was the evidence in the car that supports the claim that Brown tried to grab the gun, and the fact that the rest of the casings were all found close to where the body was found, showing Brown to have retreated from his furthest position towards Wilson and Wilson having backed up.

    Do we even agree though with the role of the prosecutor? They are there to assist the Grand Jury and to indict but their first duty is far more important and they should inform the Grand Jury of relevant evidence, do the examination of the witnesses, and provide legal support to the Grand Jury to allow them to do their job.

  203. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC: “I already gave you my answer. But now you are limiting the choice of possibilities when you already know that it was relevant to address the THC presence in Brown’s blood as well as testimony from Johnson about waxing, made to the FBI and which was listened to in its fulle 2+ hours length by the jurors. At a minimum, it serves to lay to rest jurors jumping to conclusions that Wilson was justified in shooting Brown because he was ‘high’, when the evidence is insufficient to draw any such conclusions.”

    No, NBC, you still haven’t given an answer. What you’ve attempted to do is wave your hands and claim that they were presenting all the evidence, and must have been doing so because they said they were going to present all the evidence. Simultaneously, you’ve simply ignored areas where the prosecution failed to present things, or where their witnesses presented demonstrably inaccurate material. (By the way, any luck finding a diagram showing the position of the gun when the shot that went into the door was fired?)

    Now, you are suggesting that the evidence about waxing was relevant to address the THC presence in Brown’s blood. But (1) the THC in the blood can be explained by the very simple statement that “Brown had consumed a quantity of some marijuana product within the 2-3 hours prior to the incident;” (2) the only reason that the jurors might jump to the conclusion that Wilson was justified in shooting Brown because he was “high” is because the prosecution planted that notion; and (3) they planted that notion through testimony that was inaccurate and misleading, and which they reinforced in a way that was even more inaccurate shortly before the jury began deliberations.

    The very specific (and still unanswered) question is presented because the attorney who presented the information to the grand jury should have had a reason for presenting the THC, and that reason should have had something to do with the actual task of the grand jury – which was not to determine what Michael Brown smoked for breakfast that morning, but to determine if there was probable cause to believe that Wilson was not justified in shooting Brown. That is the task they were given. How did the THC material that the prosecutors presented help them with that task?

  204. NBC says:

    Mike: How could this have served as exculpatory evidence, NBC? You’ve already conceded that you see very little evidence to it, and you have yet to explain what element of either a crime or affirmative defense the THC addresses in any way.

    Because the presence of THC could have left the impression that Wilson was justified in shooting Brown. Rather than ignore the effect of the lab’s findings on the jurors, the ADA’s addressed it.
    As to your specific question, I do not believe that your artificial limitation of what evidence can be introduced is relevant at the Grand Jury level.

    You are still conflating the petit and grand jury. The Grand Jury gets to see the evidence, the petit jury can be shielded from seeing the evidence.

    The reason I see little relevance to it because now I know the proper way to interpret the lab’s report on the 12 nanograms/ml.

  205. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC: “Because the presence of THC could have left the impression that Wilson was justified in shooting Brown. Rather than ignore the effect of the lab’s findings on the jurors, the ADA’s addressed it.”

    Right. They addressed it by presenting their arguments in a manner that did as much as possible to encourage that impression.

    NBC: “As to your specific question, I do not believe that your artificial limitation of what evidence can be introduced is relevant at the Grand Jury level.

    You are still conflating the petit and grand jury. The Grand Jury gets to see the evidence, the petit jury can be shielded from seeing the evidence.”

    Read the question. I did not ask if the information could be introduced to the grand jury. I have not argued that it was against the rules for that information to be presented. I asked you to explain why the prosecutor would choose to present this evidence – for a specific reason, not some counterfactual bullshit about presenting “all” the evidence. And, yes, presenting all the evidence is demonstrably incorrect at this point, given that they didn’t. (By the way, any luck on the diagram of the path taken by the bullet fired into the car door yet?)

    NBC: “The reason I see little relevance to it because now I know the proper way to interpret the lab’s report on the 12 nanograms/ml.”

    You might know that now, but the grand jury was given no objective evidence instruction on how to interpret that, and the vague testimony that the toxicologist provided was inaccurate.

  206. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob: “You never answered my question though. What testimony and evidence do you feel the entire case against Wilson constellates around?”

    Fair question, and one I’m not certain I have a good answer for. Setting aside my focus on the presentation for the moment, here’s where I’m at:

    First, I think that there’s a good argument to be made that the two sets of shots needs to be examined as a (somewhat) separate incident. I think it’s possible (at least in theory) that the shots in the vehicle were justified while the shots in the street were not, or vice versa.

    Next, I think there are issues with many of the eyewitnesses. Brown’s co-conspirator was a particularly poor witness, and definitely failed to impress me. At the same time, I’m also disinclined to take Wilson’s testimony entirely at face value. Wilson also had the benefit of counsel very early on, and I think he was well prepared for the relatively friendly questioning he received. His testimony didn’t hurt him any with me, but I don’t find a lot of value in it.

    Finally, we get to the physical evidence. This is more consistent with Wilson’s account than not, but there are some areas that still make me wonder. In particular, I’m still having difficulty with the shots in the car, and in finding a plausible arrangement that accounts for the bullet hole in the door, the bullet hole (crease) in Brown’s palm, and the space that Wilson is taking up in the vehicle seat. This is the area where there should be the best ability to present forensics, but the information remains frustratingly vague. The evidence is also potentially consistent with a couple of alternatives that are potentially less favorable to Wilson. Basically, my overall impression is that it’s still reasonable (if just) for someone to conclude from the evidence that Wilson lacked justification for at least some of the shots.

    • Bob Stone says:

      Mike D.: First, I think that there’s a good argument to be made that the two sets of shots needs to be examined as a (somewhat) separate incident. I think it’s possible (at least in theory) that the shots in the vehicle were justified while the shots in the street were not, or vice versa.

      I would disagree. Ask yourself this, if Wilson was fighting for his gun and his life inside the car and only escapes because the gun manged to fire, has that fight or flight response from all that adrenaline and cortisol rushing through his system even peaked before Brown starts coming at him again while his gun is drawn? What reasonable cop would not consider Brown a threat?

      Mike D. “Next, I think there are issues with many of the eyewitnesses. Brown’s co-conspirator was a particularly poor witness, and definitely failed to impress me.

      One sentence on Dorian “My Name is Derrick” Johnson? Are you kidding me? The issue is “was Wilson justified in shooting Brown?” That would make Johnson’s testimony worthy of more than a single sentence of analysis; don’t you think?

  207. Anonymous says:

    By the way, this kind of bullshit is exactly why there are hearsay rules.

    Indeed. These are exactly my sentiments in regard to numerous eyewitness accounts presented as grand jury testimony, as some witnesses changed their testimony mid-session before the grand jurors (many of whom were interviewed multiple times via investigators prior to grand jury sessions).

    I can only draw one conclusion from all of the eyewitness testimony I have read thus far: there was definitely an altercation between Brown and Wilson while Wilson was still seated in the driver’s seat, prior to any gun fire. Repeated eyewitness testimony identifies that Brown and Wilson were engaged in some sort of physical struggle (some eyewitnesses referred to it tussling). Brown was seen, by multiple eyewitnesses, reaching into the driver’s side of the police vehicle.

    Based on Wilson’s testimony, we now know there was a struggle for his firearm. We now know Brown had stolen merchandise from a local store.

    What person in their right mind would physically struggle with a police officer? Reach into a police vehicle and struggle to wrest an officer’s firearm. Seriously. Someone who does that (black or white) is certainly asking for trouble.

    And no, I do not believe our criminal justice system is without flaws. There are countless incidents that document bias on the part of law enforcement. Entire state police found guilty of racial profiling. But in this case that isn’t what happened here.

    I entered into reading the testimony thinking that Officer Wilson was another example of excessive force and police brutality.

    However, after just reading the testimony I’ve concluded otherwise.

  208. pete says:

    Did officer Wilson ever file an incident report, or did they just go by the grand jury testimony?

  209. Bob Stone says:

    Anonymous: ” I entered into reading the testimony thinking that Officer Wilson was another example of excessive force and police brutality.

    However, after just reading the testimony I’ve concluded otherwise.”

    Anonymous,

    I have been doing everything except screaming in objection to the application of a theory of collective guilt to the judgment Darren Wilson. Thank you for showing me that there’s hope.

  210. NBC says:

    Pete: Did officer Wilson ever file an incident report, or did they just go by the grand jury testimony?

    He was interview several times. Once in an interview that was not recorded, and then once at the hospital later that day and then again the next day.

  211. NBC says:

    Mike: (By the way, this kind of bullshit is exactly why there are hearsay rules.)

    Again, hearsay rules are appropriate for the petit jury and do not necessarily apply to a probable cause hearing. I still believe that you are conflating the grand and petit jury proceedings which are fundamentally different and guided by very different rules.

    Mike: There is literally zero evidence I can find that a 12 ng/ml level would create any more risk of paranoid hallucinations than you would see with any intake at all. Yet, again, they are leaving the impression that the levels Brown had created an elevated risk.

    I do not agree with that at all. It takes a single joint to get to that level and the testimony suggests that one cannot use the number to make predictions about Brown’s behavior. It was a number that needed to be addressed.

  212. NBC says:

    The toxicologist (Document 19) testifies that the only positive test was for cannabinoids. They spend some time on outlining how the testing takes place, then they focus on the cannabinoids testing and some chemistry and how marijuana decays in the body.
    They discuss a possible discrepancy between the urine and blood results and in the end the toxicologist explains why the Delta-9 in the blood is the key.

    I also misread the testimony. On a small person 12 nanograms/ml can be achieved by a single joint.

    Now, based upon your testing and your conclusions, can you make any conclusions about the
    A I can’t tell you how he was impaired. It ss like predicting what somebody would do. I can’t
    tell you that. I can tell you that the drug is present at a significant concentration that represents a large dose into Mr. Brown.
    How he would have behaved and what he would have done I cannot predict. I know the drug was having an affect and was impairing his nervous system.
    Q You would consider he was impaired in some way?
    A Yes.
    Q But you cannot draw any conclusions that he was suffering or that he was experiencing hallucinations or having a psychotic break?
    A That is correct.

    About the standard of impairment set in Colorado and California

    Q What is that?
    A 5 nanograms per mil.
    Q So in this case, Michael Brown’s level was over twice that; is that correct?
    A Yes.
    Q But again, you’re not, and the same thing with actually the consumption of alcohol, it impairs
    people, but their affects might be different depending on some of the factors that we’ve talked
    about?

    MS. ALIZADEH: I just want to real quickly be clear, you cannot say, you’re not saying, I’m assuming you’re not saying that Michael Brown was hallucinating or suffering a psychotic break, there is no way to know that; is that correct?
    A I can’t say that based on our testing, that is correct.
    MS. ALIZADEH: But based upon the levels that you tested or that you got in your testing, you consider that this dose was within two to three hours and it was a large dose of THC?
    A That is correct.

    The grand jury then asks several questions which are quite insightful. And the ADA steps in quickly when a question is asked about new versus experienced user

    MS. WHIRLEY: Again, when you talk about the greater affect coming up, going from what talked about, that does not necessarily mean that they are going to act impaired to someone who is sitting there talking to them?
    A No, I can’t predict what they will or will not do.
    MS. WHIRLEY: Right, okay.

    The ADA is doing a good job here, making sure that the grand jury is reminded of this.

    I did not find the statement that Mike referenced and which served to show that the person was no expert in a particular conclusion.

    Perhaps this was in Doc 24 where waxing was brought up again

  213. NBC says:

    Mike: NBC: The prosecutor is attempting to impeach the witness who just told the jury that there is very little chance that Brown’s behavior was caused by pot – a line of testimony that you have, as I recall, previously cited as an example of the prosecutor bringing in evidence that was not favorable to the THC Monster theory. Are you even trying to remain consistent at this point?

    I was referring to the toxicologist testimony. No consistency problem here.

  214. Slartibartfast says:

    Bob said:

    I would disagree [that the two sets of shots were separate incidents]. Ask yourself this, if Wilson was fighting for his gun and his life inside the car and only escapes because the gun manged to fire, has that fight or flight response from all that adrenaline and cortisol rushing through his system even peaked before Brown starts coming at him again while his gun is drawn? What reasonable cop would not consider Brown a threat?

    Thank you for putting the fallacy of your argument front and center like that. First of all, why don’t we start calling it the “alleged” attack by Mr. Brown on Mr. Wilson, counselor? It is not objectively proven and there was no petit jury so there has not been a finding of fact.

    Let’s examine the timeline (figuratively speaking, I’m only concerned with order rather than exact times):

    After some sort of verbal exchange (in which Mr. Wilson may not have behaved appropriately—BAD DOG), Mr. Wilson claims that the demon Brown attacked, rendering him a mewling quim (this is meant to be offensive—reciprocity for your liberal [pun intended] use of the “magic negro” meme). He responded in a manner that was justified (if the alleged attack and struggle for the gun happened) and imbecilic—firing a weapon inside his vehicle while a struggle for said weapon was occurring. BAD DOG (either for pulling the trigger or fabricating the struggle). He’s lucky he didn’t just shoot himself and spare us all of this grief. Mr. Brown was wounded and then fled, losing both of his sandals in the process. Mr. Wilson, still high on his dread of the fleeing boy that made him feel like a helpless child, first fucked up his report to the dispatcher BAD DOG. He then decided to pursue his magical negro tormenter.

    This is where Bob’s already misleading argument goes completely off the rails.

    Running after the boogieman is not the action of a 5-year old child that is piss-your-pants scared. It is the action of a police officer (and not a good one, if his prior actions are any indication) who is supposedly trained to react appropriately under such stressful circumstances. If Mr. Brown wants to claim that he was still a mewling quim when he made this choice then he needs to explain why fear made him leave the safety of his vehicle to chase after a fleeing teenager without properly reporting the incident which scared the bejesus out of him.

    Back on track now, we have ex-officer Wilson chasing after the barefoot and hatless young master Brown. Presumably, being a trained police officer with a lither build, he was quickly making up ground on his prey…

    Tune in next time for another exciting episode of Bob’s Doghouse!

    (sorry, I’ve got a meeting—I’ll continue this later)

  215. AY

    One flaw in your foundation is the “we know ..struggle …gun)
    It should be “think we know of a struggle fir the gun”

    Hypothetical

    Wilson…get your ass out of the street

    Brown….we’re jyst going right there to our destination

    Wilson…I said get your b asses off now!
    (As he backs up his SUV n blocks them)

    Wilson opens door that hits Brown in the knee who pushes back instinctively

    Wilson then yanks on Brown an goes for his gun

    When Wilson shoots,Brown instinctively runs
    ———————

    It is a possible. (even plausible) scenario

    Beyond that..the issue that remains is McCullough woukd never. Ever..present such a scenario..due to his obvious bias

    And…all that aside..anyone saying the 12 shots are unequivocally justified

    Ain’t being fair to the pursuit if the truth n justice

    Which is what an independent prosecutor..arguably…could have done by trial

  216. NBC says:

    Slarti: Actually, the soot and DNA evidence is consistent with Mr. Johnson’s testimony. It is also consistent with Mr. Wilson’s testimony. It does not support either.

    Do you still believe this? Because it contradicts Johnson’s statement that the hand was never inside the vehicle. Remember that the bullet never left the vehicle.

  217. NBC says:

    Laser: It is a possible. (even plausible) scenario

    You need to explain a bit more, such as the shot hitting Brown’s hand and leaving soot etc.

  218. NBC says:

    Laser: And…all that aside..anyone saying the 12 shots are unequivocally justified

    Nope, just very plausible given the physical evidence combined with the testimony.

  219. Slartibartfast says:

    NBC,

    How does it contradict Johnson’s statement for blowback from the wound to have landed inside the car?

    Too also, “probable cause” does not mean that it was likely that a crime occurred (as you seem to think), it means that it was possible for a crime to have occurred—at which point it is an issue for a trier of fact, not a grand jury.

  220. Bob Stone says:

    Kevin,

    It’s you that’s gone off the rails.

    “The Grand Jury met on 25 separate days in three months; heard more than 70 hours of testimony from about 60 witnesses and reviewed hours and hours of recordings of media and law enforcement interviews by many of the witnesses who testified. They heard from the three medical examiners and experts on blood, DNA, toxicology, firearms and drug analysis. They examined hundreds of photographs, some of which they asked to be taken and examined various pieces of physical evidence….” — R. McCulloch

    You Kevin can’t even be bothered to read the transcript.

  221. I take issue with the contrite word “very” plausible.

    Bull!

  222. Bob Stone says:

    NBC,

    Is Slarti this irrational over on the other blog?

  223. Slarti has it ‘Spot On’

    Arguing against a trial is akin to distrust of the system..

    Whch us hypocritical coming from thise arguing so arduouly that the system akways worked properly here

  224. Yes, McCullough for the defense..er then the people

    Er.. then Backstoppers

    Er.. then the policeman wannabe

    Er… the son of a man who had a dad, a cop, killed by a black man.

    Er.. theMcCullough to be reelected

    Er.. where is he again

    Oh yeah.. the f..n prosecutor

    That a cops adore

  225. blouise17 says:

    pete,

    If memory serves, his Ferguson PD supervisor/Sergeant made no notes or recordings and the investigation was turned over to St Louis County expeditiously.

  226. Bob Stone says:

    Slarti: Mr. Wilson claims that the demon Brown attacked, rendering him a mewling quim (this is meant to be offensive—reciprocity for your liberal [pun intended] use of the “magic negro” meme).

    Correction, I referred to Brown as “Honey Badger” — because his actions during the robbery video and the altercation with Wilson fit the description.

    The rest of your rant betrays your ignorance of the facts.

    And “mewling quim”? I had to look that one up.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mewling%20quim

  227. NBC says:

    I don’t know that I’d go that far. The soot confirms that the hand wound was very close range (within inches), but that could plausibly mean that his hands were just outside the car, rather than inside.

    It’s hard to imagine how his hand got soot and gazing shot when the bullet never left the confines of the car.

  228. NBC says:

    blouise: If memory serves, his Ferguson PD supervisor/Sergeant made no notes or recordings and the investigation was turned over to St Louis County expeditiously.

    That’s the reason cited for not having an incident report done by the Ferguson PD. The St Louis PD did provide the report.

  229. NBC says:

    Laser: That a cops adore

    The examination was not done by McCullough. I do understand your bias though. To let such bias make accusations of bias on the prosecutor however, and the grand jury needs a bit more than just pointing out meaningless references to what happened to his father or having familiy members in the police.

    Just because you do not like the outcome, you should not try to put the blame on a party who was only incidentally involved in the examination of witnesses.

    Of course, I assume that you were even aware of the details.

  230. NBC says:

    Laser: I take issue with the contrite word “very” plausible.

    Sure you do. So we disagree about what we believe. The Grand Jury’s decision however is quite defensible given the evidence. I find the evidence very plausible, you may find it less. That’s were reasonable people can disagree.

    My question to you is this: Have you studied the physical evidence? Or is the extent; 12 bullets were fired, two of which seem to have been fired while in the car, the other 10 at the end of the encounter.

  231. NBC says:

    Laser: Arguing against a trial is akin to distrust of the system..

    Arguing against a grand jury investigation is akin of distrust of the system. And yes, a trial is a crap shoot where the goal is NOT to determine truth but rather to make the best case in favor or against.

    And I am not arguing against a trial, I am arguing against your belief that the case should have gone to an independent prosecutor for trial.

    I do believe in the rights granted to defendants in our court system.

    There were three options:

    1. Prosecutor refuses to prosecute
    2. Prosecutor files information with Grand Jury to determine probable cause
    3. Prosecutor files indictment and a preliminary hearing takes place before a Judge to determine probable cause

    You seem to prefer skipping these steps?

  232. NBC says:

    Slarti: How does it contradict Johnson’s statement for blowback from the wound to have landed inside the car?

    I find Johnson’s testimony not very credible but I am referring to the soot and the wound on Browns hand. Johnson testified for example that Brown was shot in the shoulder, which does not conform to any reasonable scenario.

    Rather than changing the argument, let’s look at plausible scenarios how a bullet which was fired inside the car and never left the car, somehow caused soot and a wound on Browns hand.

    I still see no reasonable scenario that explains these cold facts that does not involve the hands being inside the vehicle.

  233. NBC says:

    Slarti: Too also, “probable cause” does not mean that it was likely that a crime occurred (as you seem to think), it means that it was possible for a crime to have occurred—at which point it is an issue for a trier of fact, not a grand jury.

    And the Grand Jury did not believe that it was probable for a crime to have occurred. Before it gets to the petit jury the grand jury is given the task to investigate if the evidence presented provides a probable cause to believe that a crime occurred.

    For a crime to have occurred, the Grand Jury would consider the statutes which outline under what circumstances the use of force is an absolute defense.

    I do understand people’s infatuation with the petit jury but I am not convinced that they are born out of a valid understanding of the different roles of the two juries.

    A side question: When is/can the absolute defense be raised? I understand that it can be raised in the pretrial motions leading up to trial. What about the preliminary hearing? What about the Grand Jury. I understand absolute defense to be an issue of law, not fact, and is decided by the trial judge. Could a preliminary hearing judge refuse to find probable cause on this defense? What about a Grand Jury?

    Am I correct?

  234. NBC says:

    So let me rephrase with a question:

    If self defense is an absolute defense, meaning that no crime has taken place, would it not be up to the grand jury to determine the existence and validity of such a defense?
    After all, with an absolute defense there can be no probable cause of a crime, because there was no crime.

  235. bettykath says:

    NBC, There was a lot of contradictory evidence. The only evidence that was subject to cross examination was of the witnesses who contradicted Wilson. No truth came out of the gj exercise except that the gj is not the place to deal with cops who shoot or maim people.

    Given the available evidence, charges should have been filed immediately and the whole thing dealt with in a public trial where witnesses could be cross examined.

  236. NBC says:

    BettyKath: NBC, There was a lot of contradictory evidence. The only evidence that was subject to cross examination was of the witnesses who contradicted Wilson.

    Any specific examples. Yes, there were some witnesses whose testimony was incredibly impeachable and the prosecutor, acting as the advisor to the Grand Jury, did the right thing.

    Given the evidence, I believe that the prosecutor could easily have refused to even file an indictment. Again, you seem to not be interested in the protections offered by the Grand Jury and the belief that ‘cross examination’ would have been helpful, rather than serve to undermine the accuracy of the testimony.

    Are you saying that police officers have a different constitutional or statutory standard when it comes to probable cause?

    I find that hard to defend from a perspective of justice, due process etc. As far as I can tell, the GJ was presented with a lot of physical evidence as well as interview and examination testimony that allowed them to make an informed decision.

    I have this suspicion that you have not read that much about what really happened as you are mostly mimicking some of the random statements I have heard about cross-examination. So may you indulge me with a few specific and relevant examples?

  237. NBC says:

    Johnson for example made some statements which if true would have made things look quite bad for Wilson, such as shooting Brown in the back while he was fleeing. Note that no physical evidence of Brown having been shot in the back exist.

    Remember that Johnson feared that the police was looking for him as a suspect in the robbery that happened earlier.

  238. Anonymous says:

    that there’s hope.

    It occurs to me that some contributors on your thread, strongly object to the personification of a police dog in your series of articles.

    I interpret your usage of a police dog as a creative writing mechanism to keep the reader hooked into your writing, rather than a reflection of racial bias, or a bias to favor of law enforcement officers.

    I’m still slogging through nearly 5,000 pages of transcripts.

  239. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D.: “Bob: First, I don’t know where you are getting “investigative grand jury” or what you mean by that.”

    Missouri State Constitution

    Article 1, Section 16. Grand juries—composition—jurisdiction to convene—powers.

    That a grand jury shall consist of twelve citizens, any nine of whom concurring find an indictment or a true bill: Provided, that no grand jury shall be convened except upon an order of a judge of a court having the power to try and determine felonies; but when so assembled such grand jury shall have POWER TO INVESTIGATE and return indictments for all character and grades of crime; and that the power of grand juries to inquire into the willful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments in connection therewith, shall never be suspended.

  240. Bob Stone says:

    Anonymous,

    The dog metaphor best describes that character trait most akin to the unconditional love of a dog in cops, fire fighters, first responders, etc.

    It also served to re-humanize Wilson after he’d been deemed responsible for everything except geological disasters.

  241. Thanks Bob, for the GJ “Constitution” rrference…

    Its been a bugger to find theveryone actual protocols

  242. Btw..Wilson DID kill Brown

    As the matter of fact.

  243. NBC says:

    Just read witness 48’s testimony. A young man/boy who observed the incident from inside his parent’s car a few car lengths away, facing down Canfield towards the direction in which Brown fled.

    His testimony is quite damning to the events as portrayed by Johnson.

    Brown took off after the second shot and the officer followed, weapon drawn but no shots were fired. Brown turned around and then started moving towards Wilson, who was shouting stop stop and walking backwards. A few shots were fired, Brown briefly stopped, continued, more shots were fired and Brown fell forwards on his knees, onto his face.

    He did not see Johnson clearly, but after the first shot, Johnson fled. He was ‘like in the area behind the cruiser’ and he took of running along building 18.

    Building 18 appears to be including building 2960 which is on the south side of Canfield.
    His parents apparently also testified, or talked to the police.

    He also did not observe the cars that were behind the police car, such as the white monte carlo.

    The Grand Jury elicits the following: Wilson’s hand was on his waist when he left the car, and the gun was not drawn until Brown turned

    Interesting Brown traveled 2 to three feet until he fell.

    MS. WHIRLEY: So as soon as he turned around and started moving towards the officer two to three feet, the officer started firing?

    Clarified

    So he didn’t just go two or three feet, he went two or three feet when the officer started shooting?

    Hands:

    A For a second it looked like he was going to put his hands up, but he brought it back down. When he charged the officer like that, that’s when you heard the first three gunshots

    A No, he like, his hands were open at first, and it looked like his arms were going to start to go up.
    Q Did they go up at all?
    A He got like shoulder length like this and then he balled his hands up and then he went like, folder his arms in and started charging towards him.

    Side note: He was never really looking to testify to the police but they found him

    Volume 18 Grand Jury Testimony

  244. bettykath says:

    NBC,

    “Any specific examples. Yes, there were some witnesses whose testimony was incredibly impeachable and the prosecutor, acting as the advisor to the Grand Jury, did the right thing.”

    Specific example: The prosecutor didn’t cross examine Wilson even when several of the witnesses disagreed with his account and the physical evidence was just as consist with their stories as with Wilson’s.

    “Given the evidence, I believe that the prosecutor could easily have refused to even file an indictment. Again, you seem to not be interested in the protections offered by the Grand Jury and the belief that ‘cross examination’ would have been helpful, rather than serve to undermine the accuracy of the testimony.”

    I disagree. There was sufficient evidence to file charges w/o a gj. I don’t see a fleeing unarmed man as a threat to anyone and that’s who was killed.

    “Are you saying that police officers have a different constitutional or statutory standard when it comes to probable cause?”

    No. That is precisely why Wilson should have been charged. He got preferential treatment that guaranteed a “no bill”. Not what any other non-cop citizen of Ferguson would have gotten.

    “I have this suspicion that you have not read that much about what really happened as you are mostly mimicking some of the random statements I have heard about cross-examination.”

    You’re insulting me. Don’t go there.

    “Johnson for example made some statements which if true would have made things look quite bad for Wilson, such as shooting Brown in the back while he was fleeing. Note that no physical evidence of Brown having been shot in the back exist.”

    I disagree. There was no blood trail from the SUV to the point where the blood stains are on the pavement. This suggests that Brown was shot before he turned around.. This is consistent with Johnson’s account.

    “Remember that Johnson feared that the police was looking for him as a suspect in the robbery that happened earlier.”

    But Wilson didn’t know about the stealing (misdemeanor). Wilson should have been cross examined about this inconsistency with the Sgt’s testimony.

  245. NBC says:

    Laser: Btw..Wilson DID kill Brown

    Yep. That was never really in doubt.

  246. bettykath says:

    Brown having his hands shoulder high would be consistent with someone who had lost blood. It’s also likely that the shot that hit his eye might very well have rendered him unconscious which would explain his arms coming down and his “bull rush” stanch as he fell to the pavement and catching a bullet to the top of his head which finished him off.

  247. To me, there are several paramount issues.

    Original statement of lack if knowledge by Wilson… of th convenience store

    If such is so, an indicfment is warranted on multiple reasons.

    Next

    A layout of shots, places (includng where SUV was, where Brown,s cohort was, where bullets landed and the pouported turn around point), Wilsons testimony and the recording included.

    And, the issue of hands in clothes on the charge….

    12 shots at unarmed man that was left on the ground with no attentiin for HOURS

  248. NBC says:

    BettyKath: I disagree. There was sufficient evidence to file charges w/o a gj. I don’t see a fleeing unarmed man as a threat to anyone and that’s who was killed.

    But he was no longer fleeing when he was shot. Does that change your mind?

    BettyKath: No. That is precisely why Wilson should have been charged. He got preferential treatment that guaranteed a “no bill”. Not what any other non-cop citizen of Ferguson would have gotten.

    How did it guarantee a no bill? Because it allowed the Jury to consider all the evidence? So your objection is that Wilson got a hearing which others may or may not have gotten? Is that justice though or just ‘getting even’?

    BettyKath: You’re insulting me. Don’t go there.

    I expressed my suspicion, that by itself is not an insult.

    BettyKath: I disagree. There was no blood trail from the SUV to the point where the blood stains are on the pavement. This suggests that Brown was shot before he turned around.. This is consistent with Johnson’s account.

    No evidence of a shot in the back was found. So the logical conclusion is that this is INconsisten with Johnson’s account?

    BettyKath: But Wilson didn’t know about the stealing (misdemeanor). Wilson should have been cross examined about this inconsistency with the Sgt’s testimony.

    He acknowledged the call from Frank 25, the officer on the scene of the robbery and asked him if he needed assistance. Hard physical evidence versus a comment by his sergeant. Did you know that the radio transcripts show this?

  249. NBC says:

    Laser: If such is so, an indicfment is warranted on multiple reasons.

    The radio evidence shows that Wilson was indeed aware of the robbery, as he had asked Frank 25, the officer on the scene, if he needed any support. Just like other officers, he was listening to the channel on which the robbery was announced.

  250. NBC says:

    Laser: 12 shots at unarmed man that was left on the ground with no attentiin for HOURS

    You do know that he was dead during that time? So you are upset that they did not move the body during the investigation? Is that somehow requiring an indictment against Wilson as well?

    2 shots at a man who was attacking Wilson, and 10 shots fired in two sequences, when Brown had turned around and moved towards the officer and when he resumed his movement.

    While we now know that he was unarmed, if Wilson was aware that there had been a robbery and if Wilson feared that he was moving towards a weapon, would your position switch? It’s too simplistic to state that a cop shot an unarmed man, as the details are a bit more subtle than that.

  251. NBC says:

    Bettykath: Brown having his hands shoulder high would be consistent with someone who had lost blood.

    How so? How much blood loss in the last 10 seconds of the event. Remember that you are also arguing that the blood trail did not start until close to the final resting place.

    Bettykath: It’s also likely that the shot that hit his eye might very well have rendered him unconscious which would explain his arms coming down and his “bull rush” stanch as he fell to the pavement and catching a bullet to the top of his head which finished him off.

    Yep, all quite consistent with the testimony by Wilson.

    The question now is: What does the evidence and testimony say about whether or not Brown was running away or coming back towards Wilson. Would it upset you that the evidence supports Brown moving towards the officer?

  252. NBC says:

    BettyKath: Specific example: The prosecutor didn’t cross examine Wilson even when several of the witnesses disagreed with his account and the physical evidence was just as consist with their stories as with Wilson’s.

    I would not say that about the physical evidence, and yes, there were contradicting stories. Your point? That the Grand Jury could not determine based on the testimony and physical evidence what most probably happened?

  253. bettykath says:

    “That the Grand Jury could not determine based on the testimony and physical evidence what most probably happened?”

    by jove, he’s got it. They could not determine what happened b/c the evidence was contradictory and that calls for a jury trial.

  254. NBC says:

    And yes, the ADA’s were pretty merciless when confronted with testimony that was uncredible

    Consider this exchange between a prosecutor and one grand jury witness.

    P: “You told them a story that had a bunch of lies, isn’t that right?”
    W: A bunch of lies?
    P: “Well, you told them that you saw the officer stand over Michael Brown and empty his clip into his body and finish him off, didn’t you say that?”
    W: “I did say that, but it was based on assumption.”

    Is that objectionable in a pursuit for the truth? Should the ADA have remained quiet?

  255. Bogus logic…

    Banter about what he knew at the time, is apropos. And a testiment exists that the answer was

    He did not know

  256. NBC says:

    bettykath: by jove, he’s got it. They could not determine what happened b/c the evidence was contradictory and that calls for a jury trial.

    Not necessarily true. And do you not understand that the Grand Jury can determine what likely happened even if there is some contradictory evidence?

    Note that the evidence supports some essential elements of Wilson’s story such as the shooting inside the car, and Brown turning around and moving towards the police officer.
    So you believe that because of this the Grand Jury should just let the case move forward? Is that the standard you have?

  257. NBC says:

    Laser: He did not know

    Yes, and this contradicted by Wilson himself, and the radio evidence. Now what?

    But to see the result of accepting your statement as relevant:

    Would the actions by Wilson have been justifiable self defense even if he had not known about the incident? Let’s assume that he was upset by the response from the two? Why would he decide to call out for assistance and then back up rather than just backup and confront them?

    Then the struggle ensued in which the physical evidence shows that Brown’s hand was inside the vehicle and close enough to the gun to receive soot and be injured.

    I’d like to hear your best scenario and reconcile it with the physical evidence.

  258. NBC says:

    Laser, and yes Banter is ok. The sergeant says that Wilson denied knowing about it, Wilson denies denying knowing about it and the radio evidence shows that Wilson called out to see if Frank 25 needed assistance. Frank 25 was the officer on the scene of the robbery, news of which had been transmitted via the radio and other officers were aware.

    Frank 21 (Wilson) was returning from a previous call.

  259. NBC, et al,
    I have said this before, but it bears repeating. If the district attorney knows full well a witness is not credible, the testimony total hearsay or gossip, or that it is not relevant and will never be admissible in a courtroom, it should never be presented to a Grand Jury. I am still scratching my head as to why on earth they presented all those witnesses to the GJ when they knew some, many, or most of them, were lying or simply repeating gossip. What was the purpose? I have no idea, but my best guess is that they were deliberately thrown into the mix to obfuscate.

    If the DA had wanted the case to go to trial, he would have simply presented the basic elements of his case in chief.

    If he wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the GJ proceedings, then keep them in session for days or weeks while they are forced to hear volumes of inadmissible testimony, thus burying the case in chief.

    • Bob Stone says:

      Chuck: “I have said this before, but it bears repeating. If the district attorney knows full well a witness is not credible, the testimony total hearsay or gossip, or that it is not relevant and will never be admissible in a courtroom, it should never be presented to a Grand Jury.”

      Chuck,

      Dorian Johnson is the biggest liar of them all.

  260. NBC says:

    Bettykath, do I understand you well, that when witnesses disagree the grand jury has no choice but to indict? I want to make sure I understand your arguments here.

  261. It is core. His contradiction, as an officer of the law…is a paramount issue.

    Held to a far greater (especially of a homicide case) than that trodden by the crowd

  262. NBC says:

    Chuck: If the district attorney knows full well a witness is not credible, the testimony total hearsay or gossip, or that it is not relevant and will never be admissible in a courtroom, it should never be presented to a Grand Jury.

    There are a few problems with that:

    1. This is a two edged sword that would have eliminated some anti-Wilson scenario evidence.
    2. The Grand Jury and Petit Jury are two different beast.

    Do you know that the Grand Jury can legally indict based on total hearsay evidence?

    3. In the given circumstances that the prosecution was accused of being potentially biased, how would it have looked to not present all the evidence.

    Chuck: If he wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the GJ proceedings, then keep them in session for days or weeks while they are forced to hear volumes of inadmissible testimony, thus burying the case in chief.

    Yes, that could have happened but it did not. Are you saying that a Grand Jury is ill prepared to do its investigative functions or that it can become ‘overwhelmed’ by too much evidence? And yes, I agree that some testimony would not have been allowed to be presented to the petit jury, but there are reasons for that which may not apply to the Grand Jury.

    Does anyone know what the rules of evidence are in a probable cause hearing?

    The role of the prosecutor with respect to the grand jury is different from the role during the petit jury. The prosecutor serves as an advisor to the Grand Jury, and in many jurisdictions is required to present all relevant evidence. In this case, the problem was that the prosecutor did not want to decide what was relevant or not, and have the jury decide.

    Shocking is it not, and yet people argue that this somehow biased the jury towards not indicting. Fascinating.

  263. NBC says:

    Laser: It is core. His contradiction, as an officer of the law…is a paramount issue.

    It’s a contradiction. How can it be resolved by asking them about it? Expecting a different answer? Wilson was clear from his initial testimony that he knew about the robbery.

    Luckily the radio evidence provides us with a way to resolve the issue, this time in favor of Wilson. Is the contradiction relevant to a decision to indict, not by a close call.

  264. NBC says:

    Chuck: If the DA had wanted the case to go to trial, he would have simply presented the basic elements of his case in chief.

    Would that have include testimony from all sides? Or just the basic elements based on what was said by some? You do understand the role of the prosecutor during a grand jury proceeding? Perhaps you can tell me what you believe it is?

  265. Bob Stone says:

    NBC,

    Johnson said in his interview with Farah Fazal on August 13th

    “He couldn’t feel the shots but he knew he was being shot and trying to tell (the officer) to stop shooting him. And, he continuously shooting him at point-blank range. He is not trying to reach for his belt line. He is not trying to run towards the officer…”

    Can you recall anyone mentioning Brown reaching for his belt line before August 13th?

    I’ve searched high and low and I can’t find it at all.

  266. NBC says:

    “But there are more cogent reasons for applying it where the communication is made to the public prosecutor In criminal cases that officer is the representative of the State. He is required not only to prosecute indictments which are found, but it is his duty to assist in the investigation of charges against individuals which are brought to the attention of the grand jury. He is by law made the legal adviser of the grand jury. When complaint is made to him that a public offense has been committed it is his duty to investigate the charge and if he deem it a matter of sufficient importance to demand the attention of the grand jury It is also his duty to have witnesses subpoened and brought before that body and he has the right to appear also and assist in their examination, Neither he nor the grand jury are confined to the witnesses named by the complainant but they have the power to send for and examine any witness whom they have reason to believe can give any material evidence bearing on the question of the guilt of the accused.”

    Missouri Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas v WM Groseclose
    Decided April 30 1908

  267. NBC says:

    Bob: Can you recall anyone mentioning Brown reaching for his belt line before August 13th?

    Wilson in his interview on August 10.

    • Bob Stone says:

      Bob: Can you recall anyone mentioning Brown reaching for his belt line before August 13th?

      NBC: Wilson in his interview on August 10.

      Dorian Johnson interview by Farah Fazal, August 13, 2014

      DJ: Yes, it definitely was fear. It definitely was horrible to watch. It was horrible to be front and center to that whole situation. I seen it in his eyes. (Crying) It looked like it hurt a lot. It hurt him a lot. I seen it in his eyes, it hurt him a lot. It just wasn’t registering because he is trying to tell the officer that he is unarmed and he cannot do nothing to stop what are you doing. He couldn’t do nothing. He couldn’t feel the shots but he knew he was being shot and trying to tell (the officer) to stop shooting him. And, he continuously shooting him at point-blank range. He is not trying to reach for his belt line. He is not trying to run towards the officer, he turned and stood towards the officer with his hands in the air.

      NBC,

      I cannot for the life of me find public reference to “reaching for a belt line” anywhere before Johnson says it here.

      Need I spell out why it’s important to verify he’s the first to mention it in public?

  268. NBC says:

    Witness 22, witness 30 going by the chart. Need to verify.

  269. NBC,
    You are absolutely correct. However, I said “should never” not “never.”
    I am aware that indictments have been handed down after only a few minutes of testimony by a single witness, such as an investigator or arresting officer. I still think they did Wilson no favors by refusing to indict. As I said before, that deprived him of his chance to be heard, in public. If the evidence pointed toward his innocence after being vetted by a Petit Jury, then so be it.

    As it is, the public perception for the rest of his life will be that he is the guy who “murdered the unarmed teenager.”

  270. NBC says:

    Those sattements were of course not made in public

  271. NBC says:

    CHuck: I am aware that indictments have been handed down after only a few minutes of testimony by a single witness, such as an investigator or arresting officer. I still think they did Wilson no favors by refusing to indict. As I said before, that deprived him of his chance to be heard, in public.

    He was heard in public. And yes, indictments may be handed down after short time. Is this one of them? Apples and oranges perhaps? The other GJ in Staten Island took many weeks. Is that not a better standard perhaps?

  272. NBC says:

    Chuck: As it is, the public perception for the rest of his life will be that he is the guy who “murdered the unarmed teenager.”

    Well, the same happened to OJ did it not? And the jury found him not guilty. Sometimes people have a hard time to accept the rulings. I see no reason to subject anyone to a petit jury trial, just to clear his name.

  273. NBC says:

    Interesting side not on witness 40

    “The little one,” wrote Witness 40 wrote referring to Brown’s partner Dorian Johnson, “punched the mirror something gold fell on the ground.” Not long after the shooting, sharp-eyed Treepers noticed that Johnson had been wearing a gold bracelet during the store robbery but not afterwards when interviewed. And yes, a gold bracelet was found next to the car. That Witness 40 saw the bracelet fall and thought it worth a diary entry seems highly unusual.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/the_strange_case_of_ferguson_witness_40.html

    A very observant eye witness.

  274. NBC says:

    Bob: Need I spell out why it’s important to verify he’s the first to mention it in public?

    Nope.

  275. NBC says:

    Having said nope, I will caution you that the mention could have been for a variety of other reasons, although being the first time it was said in the media does make one wonder. Interesting find. When was Johnson interviewed?

  276. NBC says:

    “Dorian Johnson giving a statement to the FBI on August 13th in the law office of his attorney. ”

    Same day, so it could have been raised by the interviewers

  277. NBC says:

    Strange Johnson’s FBI testimony has not been released.

  278. Mike Dunford says:

    “If self defense is an absolute defense, meaning that no crime has taken place, would it not be up to the grand jury to determine the existence and validity of such a defense?
    After all, with an absolute defense there can be no probable cause of a crime, because there was no crime.”

    No, it would not be up to the grand jury to determine the validity of the defense. The standard is still probable cause – the role of the jury is to determine if there is probable cause to believe that the affirmative defense does not apply. That’s why I’ve been formulating the role of the grand jury in those terms so consistently throughout this debate.

    This is one of the reasons that people have been focusing so much on the conflicting testimony. Essentially, the existence of conflicting testimony goes a long way toward demonstrating probable cause. So does the existence of multiple possible interpretations of the physical evidence.

  279. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob, citing to Mo. Constitution: “but when so assembled such grand jury shall have POWER TO INVESTIGATE and return indictments for all character and grades of crime; and that”

    Yes, I did see that, but that applies to all grand juries. You have been using the phrase “investigative grand jury” as if that somehow set this one apart from other grand juries. Looking at how this grand jury proceeded, I can’t see much that would indicate that it was supposed to serve any more of an “investigatory” role than any other grand jury. They were not charged differently, do not appear to have been making use of the subpoena power to compel sworn testimony from unwilling witnesses, do not seem to have taken any sort of active role in selecting or seeking witnesses, and were charged with the duty of determining if there was probable cause to indict a specific, already identified person for a crime stemming from a known incident.

  280. Concur.

    All not true, means something is glass

  281. NBC says:

    Mike, I still am not convinced. If the Grand Jury were to determine that there was an absolute defense and it was valid, it would be correct to not indict. Is there a probable cause that the affirmative defense does not apply? That would depend on an evaluation of the evidence and witnesses would it not? The existence of conflicting testimony can certainly be resolved by the Grand Jury to determine if that provides sufficient probable cause. And physical evidence itself can often be fit into more than one scenario, I understand, although I disagree with you about the physical evidence and the firing of the firearm inside the car.

    Still I hear your point and you may need to drive it home a few more times 🙂

    Is it correct to observe that we do not know how the jury voted? It could have been 12 deciding not to indict or as few as 4 deciding not to indict, one short of the required 9? 4 out of twelve, hmm.

    Do you have a definition of the term ‘probable cause’ that could help me here?

  282. NBC says:

    More probable than not.

    “A probable cause motion requires a judge to determine whether it is more probable that not that a crime was committed and that the defendant committed the crime. State v. Florence, 239 N.W.2d 892, 896 (Minn. 1976). “

  283. NBC …the Rogues Scholar of legal excitation

    Snerk….

  284. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC: “Missouri Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas v WM Groseclose
    Decided April 30 1908”

    You have posted, without full citation, a quote from a century-old Texas case. The quote you selected is actually not original to that decision, but is taken from an Iowa case. Neither of the cited cases seems to have turned on the role of the grand jury or on the details of the prosecutor’s relationship with the grand jury, so it’s probably dicta in both cases. Neither case appears to have been cited to with any great frequency by other courts (the Texas one has been cited to a total of 10 times in cases, never by a court outside Texas).

    In other words, an incorrect and inapposite citation to an old and rarely cited case from another jurisdiction.

  285. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC, attempting to define “probable cause” in Missouri: “More probable than not.”

    Wrong. Among the problems with the citation that you pulled is that it’s Minnesota law, not Missouri law. The standard in Missouri is NOT “more probable than not:”

    “This Court has defined “probable cause” for initiating prosecution as “ ‘reasonable grounds for suspicion, supported by circumstances in evidence sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious person to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged.’ ”

    Crow v. Crawford & Co., 259 S.W.3d 104, 115 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) (citations omitted).

    Probable cause determinations are not supposed (in Missouri) to involve weighing conflicting evidence:

    “The main difference between a probable cause standard and a preponderance of the evidence standard is that probable cause does not require the fact-finder to weigh conflicting evidence.”

    In re Care & Treatment of Coffman, 225 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Mo. 2007) (citation omitted).

  286. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC: “And physical evidence itself can often be fit into more than one scenario, I understand, although I disagree with you about the physical evidence and the firing of the firearm inside the car.”

    Any luck finding a diagram showing where the gun was when the shot was fired?

  287. NBC says:

    As to the police sergeant’s testimony,

    The Grand Jury member are aware of the discrpancy

    So that’s being done and was there any other things that you guys wanted or needed that?

    . I was going to see, we have learned a lot about Michael Brown through testimony. I still don’t know a lot about Officer Darren Wilson. I know we brought his supervisor in briefly to talk about protocol, what happened that day. His story was very different from Darren Wilson’s. Would be interested to know if we know about what his morning was like.

    Vol 18

    Has he ever told you, yeah, I didn’t know anything about what happened up at the Ferguson Market?
    A Yes, he has told me that in subsequent conversations.
    Q He told you he didn’t know about there being a stealing at the Ferguson Market?
    A Correct.
    Q Okay.

    These conversations apparently took place days after Wilson had testified knowing about the incident, etc. Not sure what to make of it.

  288. NBC says:

    Mike: Any luck finding a diagram showing where the gun was when the shot was fired?

    Inside the car 🙂 Close enough to Brown’s hand to leave a soot deposit and hit his hand. The bullet hit the door above the arm rest, and dented the outside after going through a hole that was pre-existing. It appears to have bounced of because of the marks on the metal around it. Given the flexibility of the arm rest material and the limited distance, I am not sure if a reliable trajectory could be made.

    From my limited access to the photographic evidence I can only state that the location of the dent and the hole appear to be close. How close? am not sure.

    I still do not see a plausible scenario for the injury and location of the bullet without accepted that Brown’s hand was inside the vehicle and close enough to the weapon to receive the soot .

  289. OJ is perhaps not the best example to use. That was a case of jury manipulation as well but of a totally different sort combined with a judge who handled counsel (in an abundance of understatement) poorly. “The Dream Team”, armed with more money than than the prosecution and aided by a judge more interested in his 15 minutes than keeping any sense of decorum and propriety in the courtroom, pulled what I call a W.C. Fields maneuver. “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” Plus in all fairness, neither prosecutor was really up for the job they faced (Darden more so than Clarke IMO). To their credit, the “Dream Team” are/were all not just highly skilled attorneys but masters of manipulation (including media manipulation). But the DNA evidence? Had it been presented under any other circumstances but that televised circus Ito was running would have probably led to a conviction. Keep in mind that at the subsequent civil trial it was almost an identical evidence set presented and OJ lost. Everyone familiar with the forensics of DNA realizes that the doubt about OJ killing those two is a number approaching so close to zero as to be practically indistinguishable from it. This case has some seriously nebulous areas in evidence all the way around, but the evidence in OJ was solid, just mis-presented (shall we say) and spun like a top. A good judge would have had the “Dream Team” before the bench pretty much day one telling them the judge speak equivalent of “knock that shit off, boys, or somebody’s going to be riding the pine”.

  290. Mike Dunford says:

    There were two shots at/near the vehicle, no? Is it clearly established that the one that went into the door was the one that hit Brown?

  291. NBC says:

    Mike: Probable cause determinations are not supposed (in Missouri) to involve weighing conflicting evidence:

    “The main difference between a probable cause standard and a preponderance of the evidence standard is that probable cause does not require the fact-finder to weigh conflicting evidence.”

    Uh, that is not what the statute says. It does not require to weigh conflicting evidence but what if they do? And what if the weighing of evidence is necessary for a probable cause determination. Let’s see if I can find the jury instructions in this case.

    So how does one define sufficiently strong? These probable cause determinations appear to be pretty vague. Court rulings mostly describe probable cause as that which led to an indictment. Exaggerating a bit.

    Probable is different from 50/50 rule so is it 40/60?

  292. NBC says:

    Gene: Keep in mind that at the subsequent civil trial it was almost an identical evidence set presented and OJ lost.

    Different standards of proof

  293. Slartibartfast says:

    NBC said:

    Slarti: Actually, the soot and DNA evidence is consistent with Mr. Johnson’s testimony. It is also consistent with Mr. Wilson’s testimony. It does not support either.

    Do you still believe this? Because it contradicts Johnson’s statement that the hand was never inside the vehicle. Remember that the bullet never left the vehicle.

    See what I said above about “consistent”. It does not contradict Johnson’s statement as blowback could have gotten into the car and the soot onto the hand if it were in close proximity to the window but not inside. Also, as I understand, one bullet left the vehicle and one did not. Is there evidence that the latter is the one which wounded Mr. Brown?

    NBC said:

    Laser: It is a possible. (even plausible) scenario

    You need to explain a bit more, such as the shot hitting Brown’s hand and leaving soot etc.

    The sooting establishes a maximum range, but does not rule out the possibility of the hand being outside the car. The same is true about the DNA on the gun and car.

    NBC said:

    Laser: And…all that aside..anyone saying the 12 shots are unequivocally justified

    Nope, just very plausible given the physical evidence combined with the testimony.

    Except it isn’t the job of the grand jury to determine whether or not the shots were justified (that’s what a petit jury is for), only whether or not it is possible that they weren’t.

    Bob said:

    NBC,

    Ask Slarti how familiar he is with the testimony and evidence.

    I’ll answer the whining, passive-aggressive attack that you’re trying to make over on the other thread when I get the chance, but for here I will just point out that your insinuation is irrelevant—I am not offering opinions or commentary about the testimony or the evidence. You’re just reaching because you can’t find fault with the merits of my arguments (at least you haven’t yet).

    Kevin,

    It’s you that’s gone off the rails.

    “The Grand Jury met on 25 separate days in three months; heard more than 70 hours of testimony from about 60 witnesses and reviewed hours and hours of recordings of media and law enforcement interviews by many of the witnesses who testified. They heard from the three medical examiners and experts on blood, DNA, toxicology, firearms and drug analysis. They examined hundreds of photographs, some of which they asked to be taken and examined various pieces of physical evidence….” — R. McCulloch

    You Kevin can’t even be bothered to read the transcript.

    Are you the only lawyer who is unaware of the tactic of burying someone in evidence in order to obscure important information? Maybe you skipped that day in law school. As for the transcript, please point out where I made a comment which implied I had read the transcript or depended on knowledge that I couldn’t have without reading it. Since you can’t, the relevance of this comment is zero.

    Bob said:

    NBC,

    Is Slarti this irrational over on the other blog?

    I’m pretty much the same everywhere, Bob and, your biased judgement aside, seem to be reasonably well respected by most denizens both here and there. But I don’t really care what anyone thinks of me, just what they think about the merits of my arguments—you know, the ones that you consistently fail to address, let alone rebut.

    Laser said:

    Slarti has it ‘Spot On’

    Arguing against a trial is akin to distrust of the system..

    Which is hypocritical coming from those arguing so arduously that the system always worked properly

    I cleaned up your comment (which I completely agree with). Maybe you need to get a phone with better text completion… 😛

    Slarti: Mr. Wilson claims that the demon Brown attacked, rendering him a mewling quim (this is meant to be offensive—reciprocity for your liberal [pun intended] use of the “magic negro” meme).

    Correction, I referred to Brown as “Honey Badger” — because his actions during the robbery video and the altercation with Wilson fit the description.

    [Snipped video which Bob posted in furtherance of his use of the “magic negro” meme as described in the article Mike S. linked]

    The rest of your rant betrays your ignorance of the facts.

    And “mewling quim”? I had to look that one up.

    Didn’t you see The Avengers? It’s how Loki refers to Black Widow while she’s interrogating him using a wounded gazelle gambit.

    If you had read the article explaining the term “magic negro” that Mike S. linked to about 30 threads ago (and we have been referencing ever since), you would know that it refers to people (such as yourself) imbuing people of color, and African-Americans in particular, with supernatural or animalistic abilities or traits. As, for example, calling Mr. Brown a “honey badger”.

    Your blindness to your own hypocrisy on this subject is nothing short of amazing. That’s one hell of a beam you’ve got in your eye.

    NBC said:

    Laser: That a cops adore

    The examination was not done by McCullough. I do understand your bias though. To let such bias make accusations of bias on the prosecutor however, and the grand jury needs a bit more than just pointing out meaningless references to what happened to his father or having familiy members in the police.

    Just because you do not like the outcome, you should not try to put the blame on a party who was only incidentally involved in the examination of witnesses.

    Of course, I assume that you were even aware of the details.

    I think the results of McCullough’s bias are pretty clear. It was almost certainly within his power to get an indictment of ex-officer Wilson and a ham sandwich if he so chose. He didn’t even try. His discretion doesn’t enter in to it as not bringing to the grand jury at all was within his discretion and he chose not to avail himself of that avenue.

    Most of us here have no problem realizing that McCullough was unwilling to take responsibility for letting ex-officer Wilson off the hook but also unwilling to risk his being indicted so he sent it to the grand jury and put his finger on the scale. The amazing thing is that its not just that you don’t have a theory (of McCullough’s behavior) which is better supported by the evidence, you don’t have one that is even consistent with the evidence, yet you still refuse to acknowledge this.

    NBC said:

    Slarti: How does it contradict Johnson’s statement for blowback from the wound to have landed inside the car?

    I find Johnson’s testimony not very credible but I am referring to the soot and the wound on Browns hand. Johnson testified for example that Brown was shot in the shoulder, which does not conform to any reasonable scenario.

    Rather than changing the argument, let’s look at plausible scenarios how a bullet which was fired inside the car and never left the car, somehow caused soot and a wound on Browns hand.

    I still see no reasonable scenario that explains these cold facts that does not involve the hands being inside the vehicle.

    Soot only indicates close range—not necessary inside the car. If you are going to pose scenarios, you must include both bullets (one of which left the car) and you should start by taking Mike D’s suggestion about what the trajectory of the bullet lodged in the door tells us about the incident. As far as the grand jury is concerned, however, the physical evidence does not rule out Mr. Johnson’s account so it could possibly be found to be true by a petit jury. Therefore, to the extent that his testimony supports a theory that includes a criminal offense, there is probable cause to indict.

    NBC wrote:

    Slarti: Too also, “probable cause” does not mean that it was likely that a crime occurred (as you seem to think), it means that it was possible for a crime to have occurred—at which point it is an issue for a trier of fact, not a grand jury.

    And the Grand Jury did not believe that it was probable for a crime to have occurred. Before it gets to the petit jury the grand jury is given the task to investigate if the evidence presented provides a probable cause to believe that a crime occurred.

    In other words, they determine whether or not it is possible that a crime occurred.

    For a crime to have occurred, the Grand Jury would consider the statutes which outline under what circumstances the use of force is an absolute defense.

    Under normal circumstances, the grand jury would be presented with an offense or range of offenses to consider.

    I do understand people’s infatuation with the petit jury but I am not convinced that they are born out of a valid understanding of the different roles of the two juries.

    I’m convinced (and I’m not the only one) that the person that doesn’t understand the respective roles of the grand and petit juries is you.

    grand jury: is it possible that a crime happened?

    petit jury: did this particular crime happen?

    A side question: When is/can the absolute defense be raised? I understand that it can be raised in the pretrial motions leading up to trial. What about the preliminary hearing? What about the Grand Jury. I understand absolute defense to be an issue of law, not fact, and is decided by the trial judge. Could a preliminary hearing judge refuse to find probable cause on this defense? What about a Grand Jury?

    How can any defense be raised in the absence of an advocate for the accused. Oops, I forgot, you seem to believe that it was appropriate for McCullough to act as the advocate for Mr. Brown’s killer.

    Am I correct?

    Um… no.

    NBC said:

    BettyKath: NBC, There was a lot of contradictory evidence. The only evidence that was subject to cross examination was of the witnesses who contradicted Wilson.

    Any specific examples. Yes, there were some witnesses whose testimony was incredibly impeachable and the prosecutor, acting as the advisor to the Grand Jury, did the right thing.

    While ignoring unimportant little details like the discrepancy between what Mr. Wilson and his former Sergeant said? Might a cross-examination of what looks like perjury by one of them be relevant?

    Given the evidence, I believe that the prosecutor could easily have refused to even file an indictment.

    That would have been his right. And then it would have also been his right to endure the well-deserved political shitstorm that would have been sure to follow. But to believe that he couldn’t get an indictment had he wanted to (ham sandwich, anyone?) strains credulity.

    Again, you seem to not be interested in the protections offered by the Grand Jury and the belief that ‘cross examination’ would have been helpful, rather than serve to undermine the accuracy of the testimony.

    It was biased. As in, it was propaganda perpetrated by a prosecutor who decided to act like a defense attorney to make sure that Mr. Brown’s killer didn’t suffer for his lack of courage (to make the decision not to indict himself) and integrity (to do his job to the best of his ability).

    Are you saying that police officers have a different constitutional or statutory standard when it comes to probable cause?

    Are you serious? We want police officers to face the same system everyone else does instead of the special standard that allows them to flip from terrified child to 007, licensed to kill at will.

    I find that hard to defend from a perspective of justice, due process etc. As far as I can tell, the GJ was presented with a lot of physical evidence as well as interview and examination testimony that allowed them to make an informed decision.

    And the fact that the system was clearly rigged to produce a pre-determined result doesn’t bother you at all, eh?

    I have this suspicion that you have not read that much about what really happened as you are mostly mimicking some of the random statements I have heard about cross-examination. So may you indulge me with a few specific and relevant examples?

    I have the suspicion that you don’t understand Bettykath’s arguments well enough to judge her knowledge, but that’s just me…

    NBC said:

    Johnson for example made some statements which if true would have made things look quite bad for Wilson, such as shooting Brown in the back while he was fleeing. Note that no physical evidence of Brown having been shot in the back exist.

    Remember that Johnson feared that the police was looking for him as a suspect in the robbery that happened earlier.

    There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Brown turned around before his killer started firing. Do you think it is okay to shoot an unarmed, fleeing, barefoot and hatless boy in the back as long as you keep missing until he turns to face you?

    That’s enough for now…

  294. Slartibartfast says:

    NBC said:

    And yes, the ADA’s were pretty merciless when confronted with testimony that was uncredible

    Consider this exchange between a prosecutor and one grand jury witness.

    P: “You told them a story that had a bunch of lies, isn’t that right?”
    W: A bunch of lies?
    P: “Well, you told them that you saw the officer stand over Michael Brown and empty his clip into his body and finish him off, didn’t you say that?”
    W: “I did say that, but it was based on assumption.”

    Is that objectionable in a pursuit for the truth? Should the ADA have remained quiet?

    Should the ADA have remained quiet regarding the contradiction between the testimony of Mr. Wilson and a police sergeant?

  295. Slartibartfast says:

    NBC,

    If it is not the grand jury’s job to weigh the evidence, then it logically follows that they do not need to weigh the evidence to do their job, right? In that case, they must not need to figure out what is probably true—only what is possibly true. Can any system claim to be just if possible crimes are ignored? Should people be able to get away with murder as long as it wasn’t obvious that they did it?

  296. Its clearly obvious that Wilson killed Brown. The question that comes next

    Was it justified

    Could it have been abuse

    Both of those questions, to a GJ, have vast posdible answers, given the evidence at hand.

    Wonder what the feds will conclude

    And When?

  297. NBC says:

    Ok, I have come to the conclusion that my understanding of probable case was setting a higher standard than what the law proscribes.

  298. Wow!

    I,m actually moving to the floor mindboggled right now.

    Kudos to NBC for reasonableness

  299. Slartibartfast says:

    NBC,

    Fair enough. How does your new understanding change your position?

  300. NBC says:

    Slarti: Give me some time to ponder.

    Laser: Wonder what the feds will conclude

    A civil right’s lawsuit is unlikely. And since self defense is an absolute defense, the civil lawsuit may not be able to proceed.

    2. The court shall award attorney’s fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant has an absolute defense as provided in subsection 1 of this section.

    So any lawsuit may proceed but if the court finds absolute defense, then it could be costly for any plaintiff. Although it might be way to have a judge decide the issue. The decision is an issue of law, not fact.

  301. Slartibartfast says:

    NBC,

    Again, fair enough. I’ll finish my story above after you respond.

  302. NBC,

    You may be correct on the presumption that nothing will come off it…

    But incorrect about the logic as to why

  303. NBC,
    I think you meant “prescribes” not “proscribes.”

    If the Grand Jury had really been doing its job, it could have expanded the inquiry into management of the police department, city management, and even the district attorney’s office itself. A GJ does not really have limitations on what it can examine. All it takes is one or two sharp and inquiring minds, who do not mind asking embarrassing questions.

    I am aware of Grand Juries going rogue and expanding probes, sometimes returning indictments in truly unexpected places. Or naming “unindicted co-conspirators.”

  304. Bob Stone says:

    Slarti: “If it is not the grand jury’s job to weigh the evidence, then it logically follows that they do not need to weigh the evidence to do their job, right? In that case, they must not need to figure out what is probably true—only what is possibly true. Can any system claim to be just if possible crimes are ignored? Should people be able to get away with murder as long as it wasn’t obvious that they did it?”

    Probable cause is not synonymous with possibility of crime.

    The grand jury serves the “dual function of determining if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and of protecting citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions.”
    Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-87 (1972).

    An example of an unfounded criminal prosecution would be one brought by a prosecutor that got an indictment by virtue of an instruction using Slarti’s new standard of “Possible cause to believe a crime was committed.”

  305. NBC says:

    Slarti: If it is not the grand jury’s job to weigh the evidence, then it logically follows that they do not need to weigh the evidence to do their job, right?

    It does not require them to weigh the evidence, but the Grand Jury is far less constrained by procedures in determining probable cause. Therefor, it will be hard to argue that the Grand Jury’s decision is unjust. If they believe that there was no probable cause to conclude that no self defense could be argued, their decision still seems fair to me.

    See, the problem with the Grand Jury seems to be that the courts presume that their findings are correct. And it is truly an uphill battle to show otherwise. Of course that is in case of probable cause findings. A lack of probable cause finding cannot be argued in court any further.

    I am still struggling with how to interpret probable cause correctly. Case law is just incredibly limited as few grand jury decisions are ever argued in courts and their proceedings are secret.

    It sounds to me more like a Grand Jury investigation than a Grand Jury indictment, if that makes sense. Since no indictment was presented by the prosecutor, the grand jury’s task became more than it typically entails.

    Staten Island Grand jury similarly convened for months before not indicting officer. Are these investigations different? Mike?

  306. NBC says:

    Chuck: If the Grand Jury had really been doing its job, it could have expanded the inquiry into management of the police department, city management, and even the district attorney’s office itself.

    Assuming it believed that such expansion was necessary?

  307. NBC says:

    Laser: But incorrect about the logic as to why

    Your statements without any attempt to explain your thought process is quite annoying. That and your sometimes random ramblings. You are quick to reject and slow to present a reasoned argument.

    May I ask you why you believe I am wrong? Surprise me.

  308. The only thing unfounded is your relentless assertion if unfoundedness.

    For someone so quick to crucify a politico you believe crossed the due to a poor choice of words, it is mindboggling how antagonistic you are in the other corners desire for vindicating a killer.

    Perplexing value system

  309. NBC says:

    Laser: presumption

    It’s a prediction based on looking at the evidence. A presumption is:

    an act or instance of taking something to be true or adopting a particular attitude toward something, especially at the start of a chain of argument or action.

  310. Wow… I’ve annoyed you!

    If I could just do so about 88 more times…we might get even.

    Kinda doubt it though…

    My goal is to dicuss the issues

    Your goal seems to be with just finding fault with everyone of U,S. Progressives

  311. NBC says:

    Laser: it is mindboggling how antagonistic you are in the other corners desire for vindicating a killer.

    Again, you are making claims that are not supported by the evidence. In fact, they are contradicted by the evidence.

    Does it not concern you that the easy with which many of your claims have been rejected might be an indicator of poor skills?

    May I also suggest that you read your postings as they just seem to lack words.

    But if I am wrong about unfounded, then I can expect a foundation for your claims? Or will you prove me right once again.

    Last time we explored the facts, you ran.

  312. NBC says:

    Laser: My goal is to dicuss the issues Your goal seems to be with just finding fault with everyone of U,S. Progressives

    I am a progressive myself and hold my fellow progressives perhaps to higher standards. Your goal so far has not to discuss the issues. And when attempts are made to discuss you quickly run because people observe the errors in your arguments. Rather than blame others, is it not time to do some introspection?

  313. NBC says:

    Laser: Wow… I’ve annoyed you!

    As I said, I do not respect foolishness and poorly formulated ‘arguments’. Even more so when it comes from those claiming to be fellow progressives. Perhaps my expectations are too high? I surely hope not.

  314. NBC,
    A lot depends on the makeup of the GJ. They are like people, and have a collective personality. No two of them are alike. What they believe is dependent on how many hard questions they are willing to ask.

    Can you imagine Gene sitting as a Grand Juror? Or me, for that matter? Blouise and eniobob would have to press Laser and pete into service to help out with the popcorn franchise.

    It is late, and time for a story. Here is Mr. Bill of McCook, Nebraska. The cowhand storyteller.

  315. NBC says:

    Look Laser, it one of our previous engagements, you muttered some random claims about 9th and fraud etc. I did my research and tracked them back to a legal filing and showed the legal foundation for your failures.

    You stomped your feet, accused me of being so negative and abandoned the discussion. Stomping your feet and holding your breath have gone out of fashion my friend.

  316. NBC says:

    Chuck: A lot depends on the makeup of the GJ. They are like people, and have a collective personality. No two of them are alike. What they believe is dependent on how many hard questions they are willing to ask.

    Did you check the transcript to see how many questions they asked and how relevant they were? But yes, given the secret nature of the GJ, we most often do not know. That’s our judicial system for you. Which is why I prefer a inquisitional approach rather than a confrontational approach. One judge to determine the facts, one to hold the trial. Ain’t gonna happen in our country though.

    But our indictment rates and conviction rates for financial crimes for example could benefit from a more informed examiner of fact.

    I am personally not a real fan of jury trials.

  317. NBC,
    I am not about to wade through five thousand pages of transcripts to get at the number and types of questions asked. Not unless somebody is paying my hourly rate. I have neither the time nor interest.

    On the other hand, your bias against jury trials shows, which explains some earlier comments. Personally, I like jury trials, but have little use for some of the prosecutors and defense lawyers I have seen in action over the years, not to mention some judges. Gene’s mention of the Simpson trial is a perfect example.

  318. NBC…

    I wouldnt allow you into my inner circle of progressives; because you find fault with nearly everything Ive said and done.

    You spout case sights, as if an expert in such; but you’re on the record stating you dont practice law (other than in this blog).

    You are antagonistic in a mild. .. but infuriating way… as if you have nothing better to do than get peoples goats.

    Such “progress” I dont need , nor have the time for. Such as your purportrd offer to debate the cases elsewhere

    On such you are a waste of time.

    I seek qualitative persons who will take a good look at the facts and turn it into a quantitative discussion to achieve good faith results.

    All you seek, is to condemn me to a deeper hell of anxiety with unqualified babbkling, repetitive, reinforcing bull shit.

    Stuff like that us GOP 101;
    and I cant gain any progress from such.

    Until you star acting genuinely impartial

    We are done!

  319. Oh.. and by the way

    I’m not your £©$&§ING

    FRIEND

  320. pete says:

    Chuck

    extra butter?

  321. NBC says:

    Laser: I wouldnt allow you into my inner circle of progressives; because you find fault with nearly everything Ive said and done.

    I am heart broken that I am not allowed inside your inner circle. It would have been so much fun. The progressives I hang out with thrive on knowledge, explore weaknesses, and confront discomfortable moments.

    And no I am not impartial to ignorance. I abhor it, I reject it, and I expose it. Others prefer to run. Fine with me.

  322. NBC,

    Standards of proof are beside the point when your evidence is of the quality of DNA. If you match 13 loci, for example, your chance of finding a false match is 1 in 10,000,000,000,000 (significantly larger than the population of Earth). DNA testing is the only forensic methodology shown to be able to consistently and accurately link a piece of evidence to an individual or single source.

    So what went wrong at the Ito court and OJ?

    Again: how you say something can be as important (or more so) than what you say.

    Don’t underestimate the malleability of the human mind through applied language and imagery. Even when you know a lot about the techniques and science behind it? No one is 100% proof against the proven tactics. It’s a scientific approach to persuasion that is very effective and especially when used as part of a cogent strategy using multiple techniques in conjunction and/or serially.

  323. NBC says:

    Chuck: On the other hand, your bias against jury trials shows, which explains some earlier comments.

    It’s a dislike not necessarily a bias. It’s just that I can appreciate its shortcoming. Perhaps you are biased towards jury trial, which explains earlier comments.

    PS: We all have biases my friend. Few may realize and understand what their biases are and do their best to minimize them. I call it intellectual curiosity and hypothesis testing. We do learn little from our victories, similarly we learn more from the arguments by those with whom we disagree that by those with whom we agree.

  324. NBC says:

    Gene: So what went wrong at the Ito court and OJ?

    Incompetence.

  325. NBC says:

    Or was it racial bias 😉

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “Gene: So what went wrong at the Ito court and OJ?
      Incompetence.”

      Believe it or not I am, or at least was at the time, somewhat of an expert observer of the OJ trial. Working in an NYC bureaucracy as the Deputy Director of Facilities for the NYC Shelter System at the point of the initial hearing and the trial I was in a bureaucratic limbo. The shelter system was being split off into its own Agency and I had opted to remain with the parent Agency. My prospective new job as a Agency Chief Contracting Officer had yet to be finalized and those taking over the shelter system had their own bureaucracy in place. A fellow manager brought in a TV set and we spent our work days watching the entire trial. Here’s what went wrong from my perspective. First let me mention that before the murders I loathed OJ Simpson. I felt his fame as a football runner was overhyped and his latter career as an actor and advertising flack made him seem like an ass. So when the murder happened, from a personal standpoint I was convinced that he did it and of course that long, evening car chase did little to disabuse me of that belief.

      Slowly though, through the prejudicial and torturous process of negative leakage by the LA DA, in effect poisoning the well of potential jurors it began to occur to me that this case was being tried in the media, rather than in court. Then came the preliminary hearing and TV. Judge Ito seemed an officious clown from the jump, obviously preening before the camera as he saw his big chance for stardom arive. Remember this was LA and everyone in LA apparently longs to be a star. Marcia Clark and James Darden too were playing for the camera as each no doubt saw the expanse of a great political future open up before them. On the defense side the “dream team” were almost all already famous media stars and so they were much better equipped to handle the limelight and actually do their jobs. You had F. Lee Bailey and Alan Deshowitz already quite famous, with a proven record of fighting for civil liberties. Johnny Cochran, a black lawyer who had made it in LA as a defense lawyer of fame with an over the top style that would have graced any courtroom movie made. Bob Kardashian was OJ’s friend and a quite prominent lawyer among the LA elite and he came across as steady and solid. The most obscure part of the team was Barry Sheck, who in the long run has become the most principled contributor to American civil liberties than any of the rest. Sheck had the brains to be in on the ground floor of DNA testing as it was coming to the fore and so had the expertise to confound the DNA evidence introduced.

      As the days went by the case began to fascinate me. I would watch the actual trial during the day and my wife and I would watch the news recaps at night. The nightly recaps showed a far different picture of the trial and the accompanying analysis was usually favorable to the prosecution. THe actual trial showed two arrogant prosecutors, neither likable, presenting their case for the TV cameras (LA fame whores), rather than engaging the jurors. The defense, being stars already played for the jury. The police witnesses came across as more interested in covering up their various mistakes and they seemed to be hiding something. When the evidence of previous encounters with OJ and Nicole re: domestic violence came up, doubt was implanted in the jury pool. The finding of the “bloody glove” seemed improbable, because of necessity they had to have a proper chain of evidence. I’ve no doubt the “bloody glove” was not planted per se, but I think the reality was the police getting it probably was playing fast and loose with Fourth Amendment search procedures. The trying on of the “bloody glove” in tandem with the “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” mantra of Johnny Cochran was a prosecution debacle of major proportions. Now anyone who has lived in wintry climes knows that wet, leather gloves have a tendency to shrink. Yet the prosecution was intent on sealing their victory by having OJ try on the gloves before the jury sealing his fate, it backfired and any evidence of the normal shrinkage of leather gloves due to being wet couldn’t overcome that scene of OJ trying them on.

      There were numerous other things that also were prosecutorial loose ends, mainly perhaps because their explanation to the jury never quite lived up to the actual evidence they had. The murder timeline they presented had loopholes and left room for doubt, which was cleverly sown by the defense. Yet all the while, most of America was getting the condensed version of the trial and the evening play-by-play from “experts” basking in their new found celebrity and being convinced of OJ’s guilt. They ignored or downplayed the prosecution’s incompetence in front of the jury and they lionized the police, crime lab testimony which at points in court seemed unbelievable because of the line of questioning, rather than the salient facts they were presenting.

      As the trial ended I was convinced of OJ’s involvement somehow in the murders, but I was also convinced that the case presented against him just barely missed the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, not because of the evidence but because of the errors of the prosecution and a Judge taking his shot at fame. When the jurors acquitted him, I was surprised but not shocked because had I been on that jury I my have voted similarly, all the while believing in his guilt.

      As for OJ there is this Zen parable:

      “There was a man who was at the gallows in the center of town about to be executed as the whole town watched. Seconds before the appointed time a horseman rode up with a pardon from the Emperor. The noose was removed and the man looked around him seeing for the first time the beauty of the day and the colors dancing before him with a clarity he had never before experienced. Satori. He vowed to himself to live a different life, to change his evil ways. Two years later he was found in the dust of the street, dead from an excess of alcohol and his dissolute ways.”.

      Karma is a bitch.

  326. For one, I’ve always been in favor of professional jurist.

    Ones educated in forensics, abuse, drugs, weapons etc.

    With open records on their votes and opines as to why(s)

    Would love a retired Otteray , Gene, Mike, Blouise, Elaine etc.

    Slarti could be the judge

    And fredom wouldn’t reign

    Nor would abuse if process

    Even handed justice in my lifetime

    Awh.., but to dream

  327. NBC says:

    I can understand why you like like minded people to be in charge. Are you sure that would be even handed justice?

    Just because you lost in court does not make them biased my friend, just well informed. Once you come to accept this, you too may find even handed justice in your lifetime. Unless by justice you mean ‘being right’. That’s far less likely.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “I can understand why you like like minded people to be in charge. Are you sure that would be even handed justice?

      Just because you lost in court does not make them biased my friend, just well informed. Once you come to accept this, you too may find even handed justice in your lifetime. Unless by justice you mean ‘being right’. That’s far less likely.”

      NBC,

      There seems to be a streak of gratuitous meanness in you that you belie under mild rhetoric. Now this isn’t a warning to you because we don’t “monitor” mean spirited behavior here, nor do we censor it. And yes I understand that Laser has been sniping at you as well. This blog doesn’t and will not have any standard of civility as long as Gene is in charge. However, as I mentioned above karma is a bitch and as self confident as you may be, you are swimming in waters infested with rhetorical sharks. Here’s the thing, Lasers ordeals with the court system have been long and painful and still have not quite scabbed over, which is understandable given what he’s been through, whether or not anyone sees merit in his case. Your seemingly mild advice to him as in:

      “Just because you lost in court does not make them biased my friend, just well informed. Once you come to accept this, you too may find even handed justice in your lifetime. Unless by justice you mean ‘being right’. That’s far less likely.”

      On the surface it looks like you are trying to give him wise counsel but it’s obvious that’s not your motive. At this point in your exchanges with him though, it is really just another poke at the scab byr you done in the spirit of cruelty, rather than compassion. You have a right to do that here “my friend”, but then again I have a right to call you out on it and expose it as mean behavior from my viewpoint.

  328. NBC,

    Incompetence on Ito’s part combined with overwhelmed and outmatched prosecutors and a defense tean who bamboozled the jury using presentation tactics no decent judge would allow. Whether they created or played to an exiting jury bias? Hard to tell. It was a total circus. But if I had to pick a single cause? It would be Ito’s lack of control over counsel.

  329. blouise17 says:

    It would be Ito’s lack of control over counsel. – Gene

    And self control. How well I remember all the effort it took to hold back the tears …”I love my wife dearly …”

  330. NBC says:

    Good point had totally forgotten about Ito, He was never really ‘there’ now was he?

  331. Like minded, fair minded people in charge. Instead of persons who feign to be psychics and know it alls bout everyhing…

    In a contemptible.. biased manner

  332. NBC says:

    Laser: In a contemptible.. biased manner

    Writing your autobiography?

    Don’t you really care why you failed and you are looking for people that tell you how great you are? In the end you have to make a choice, reality or your fairy tale world.

  333. NBC says:

    Laser, res judicata and Barton are just deadly to your complaint. If you cannot accept that then you have closed your mind to reality.

  334. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC: “A civil right’s lawsuit is unlikely. And since self defense is an absolute defense, the civil lawsuit may not be able to proceed….So any lawsuit may proceed but if the court finds absolute defense, then it could be costly for any plaintiff. Although it might be way to have a judge decide the issue. The decision is an issue of law, not fact.”

    I’m not sure Wilson, who was a uniformed police officer driving a marked car at the time of the incident, would fall under those statutory provisions. The law enforcement justification also provides him an affirmative defense, but it differs from self-defense in ways that would be very relevant here. If the law enforcement justification statute does not contain a fee-shifting provision (and I’m pretty sure it does not), fees would not be available. (I’ve spent well over 100 hours on attorneys fees research over the past couple of months, so this is an area I’m very familiar with at the moment.)

    Even if the case is defended under the self-defense statute, I’m not sure if the fee-shifting would apply to all likely defendants. Because Wilson was an on-duty police officer, I’d guess that any suit would also name the police department and the municipality, and would state causes of action against them both for the wrongful death itself and for negligent training and hiring. I’m not sure how the fee shifting clause would play out in such a case.

    I’m also not sure if a civil rights claim is unlikely, and bringing such a claim might have procedural benefits. There’s a federal cause of action, which opens the door to federal court; the supplemental jurisdiction of the court would be invoked to bring the associated common law tort claims along for the ride. One advantage there is that while the civil rights act has a fee-shifting statute, the fee-shifting is discretionary (“the court may award”) rather than mandatory (“the court shall award”).

    My guess is that a suit will be filed to considerable fanfare in the next couple of months, and will quietly and confidentially settle a year or so later.

  335. You are forbidden from baiting me on my case…

    STOP IT!

    Please….

    You dont know what the. F%#@ you are talking about…

  336. Corruption is the damn problem.

    Stop this crap…

    Or Ill start giving you some of your own.medicine

  337. Mike D,

    On what plane of sover immunity (at barest of minimums quasi)

    Could they sue him?

    I dont think so

  338. Anonymous says:

    laserDliquidator:
    <blockquote.One flaw in your foundation is the “we know ..struggle …gun)
    It should be “think we know of a struggle fir the gun”

    Why else would Brown have reached into the police vehicle? Several witness saw Brown’s body in some sort of struggle with Wilson. Wilson testified there was a struggle for his service weapon.

    Here’s an <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-reconstruction/&quot; info-graphic (with additional reference to the forensic evidence showing Wilson’s DNA was detected on Brown’s left palm) if you’re having trouble visualizing just from reading the testimony.

    THE EVIDENCE

    Brown’s DNA was found on the left thigh of Wilson’s pants. Brown’s DNA was also found on the gun. While inspecting the gun, a detective observed a reddish substance, consistent with blood, on the slide and frame of the firearm. Brown’s DNA was also found on the inside driver’s door handle of the police SUV. Investigators said they could swab for DNA or dust for fingerprints but not both. One test would destroy evidence from the other.

    Honestly, I do not understand why so many on this thread are so dense about this.

  339. Anonymous says:

    The link to the info-graphic: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-reconstruction/

    My effort to insert it failed. Sorry.

  340. bettykath says:

    I’m not going to read through all the comments but I’ll respond to one.

    The radio transcript shows that the report of a stealing (misdemeanor) occurred and a description was given. However, this was at the time that Wilson was tending to the baby and not in his SUV. It explains why he told the sgt that he didn’t know about the robbery (felony, because it hadn’t been reported as such) or even the stealing (misdemeanor) and why, with the radio transcript, it looks like he could have heard it and so by the time he testifies, he miraculously heard it. Again, one cop lied, the one who benefited from the lie, Wilson.

  341. bettykath says:

    “I think there was a reasonable doubt in the OJ case because I know the police planted pilfered blood evidence obtained at autopsy and broke the chain of custody creating all sorts of reasonable doubt. I was a DNA consultant for the defense and followed that aspect of the case closely.”

    http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/01/03/maat-justice-the-golden-rule-and-jury-nullification/

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “I think there was a reasonable doubt in the OJ case because I know the police planted pilfered blood evidence obtained at autopsy and broke the chain of custody creating all sorts of reasonable doubt. I was a DNA consultant for the defense and followed that aspect of the case closely.”

      Bettykath,

      Thank you for that, I sort of alluded to it above when I was talking about police credibility and also about Barry Sheck (and his team), but it really is an important element. The police testimony was so “dodgy” that evidence planting was a real suspicion. Remember too, the “blood evidence” at OJ’s house was basically various specks and anyone that had murdered two people with knoves in that manner would have been covered in blood.

      This opens ups in truth my own theory of the case which was OJ had worked with people to commit the murders and it was probably Colombian Drug dealers. Both OJ and Nicole were known coke users and I suspect a deal had gone down, followed by a heist and murder. OJ may well have been there and observing them for his own revengeful pleasure. Of course that is the speculation of someone who has made a lifelong effort to control his paranoid fantasies. 🙂

  342. Bob Stone says:

    Anonymous: “Honestly, I do not understand why so many on this thread are so dense about this.”

    Anonymous,

    What’s your take on Slarti’s “interpreting” the evidence without even having looked at it?

    And what’s with the “magical negro” tripe?

    Sorry, Brown, like Honey Badger, “didn’t give a shit” and “took whatever he wanted.”

  343. Bob Stone says:

    Bettykath: “The radio transcript shows that the report of a stealing (misdemeanor) occurred and a description was given. However, this was at the time that Wilson was tending to the baby and not in his SUV.”

    Wilson: While on the sick case call, a call came out for a stealing in progress from the local market on West Florissant, that the suspects traveling towards QT. I didn’t hear the entire call, I was on on my portable radio, which isn’t exactly the best. I did hear that a suspect was wearing a black shirt and that a box of Cigarillos was stolen. (GJT, Vol. 5, pg. 202)

    Wilson: “When I start looking at Brown, first thing I notice is in his right hand, his hand is full of Cigarillos. And that’s when it clicked for me because I now saw the Cigarillos, I looked in my mirror, I did a doublecheck that Johnson was wearing a black shirt, these are the two from the stealing. And they kept walking, as I said, they never once stopped, never got on the sidewalk, they stayed in the middle of the road.

    So I got on my radio and Frank 21 is my call sign that day, I said Frank 21 I’m on Canfield with two, send me another car.” (GJT, Vol. 5, pg. 209)

    His precise words were: ” “21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car.”

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/special/html_79c17aed-0dbe-514d-ba32-bad908056790.html

  344. Bob Stone says:

    Sorry Mike,

    If the robbery video was in black and white, Brown would still be a Honey Badger.

  345. Mike Spindell says:

    Interestingly the “magical negro” has been a trope in films for many years as pointed out by Spike Lee below and knowing that you are a film aficionado, I was surprised you were unaware of it.

    http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/racism-problematic-belief-magical-negro-spike-lee-movies-hollywood-92167/

    http://www.avclub.com/article/inventory-13-movies-featuring-magical-black-men-1782

  346. Mike Spindell says:

    Or perhaps this in depth examination dealing with film and literature may help clarify your understanding:

    http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20041025/kinga.shtml

    And finally, just to show the widespread currency of this trope: the Wiki article.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro

    Now perhaps this might explain somewhat those of us who found the descriptions of Brown as a “demon’ by Wilson somewhat disconcerting.

  347. Mike Spindell says:

    “Sorry Mike,
    If the robbery video was in black and white, Brown would still be a Honey Badger.”

    Well Bob,
    If this was quickly addressed to my 11:23am comment, then it shows that you don’t even follow your own strictures to read the evidence, since your comment was non-responsive. But I understand, just like the marijuana section of the Grand Jury transcript which you admitted not having read at one point, why bother with all the facts since your mind was made up way before the Grand Jury transcripts? I’m well aware that Josie’s testimony and reporter’s stories in the Washington Post quoting “unnamed sources” were all you needed to make your mind up.

  348. Elaine M. says:

    Mike,

    It’s only we members of the mob who are biased, doncha know? Members of the anti-grievance syndicate remain unbiased at all times. They are completely…totally…100% impartial.

  349. Anonymous,

    There are vast possible scenarios for the car altercation.

    As iterated heretofore…

    Broen n friend are in middle of street and Wilson, driving by, having no idea about the store issue barks

    Get out of the street

    Brown replies..we’re going right there

    Wilson, backing up his car barks

    I said get your asses out of the street

    ——Then Wilson, pissed he wasnt being obeyed like a king, opens his door, hits Brown in the knee, who defensively.pushes it back.

    Wilson …now really pissed.. yanks on Brown… who trues to free himself.

    When Wilson goes for his gun and shoots …..

    Now Wilson has to make sure that the guy he called names and possibly already hit with a bullet

    Cant be around to testify

    Explains opportunity, motive and means

  350. Eliane…

    Sigh….

    Being impartial and asking questions …makes one a damn lib.

    Pesky free thinking cumquats!

    Powers that be have spoken and it is to be accepted as g0dspeak. And, until libs “get that” free thinking is considered unlawful bias…

    The world og Siggy n Heil wont be okay

  351. Magic Negro.

    Honey Badger.

    One characterization is acceptable and yet the other is not.

    Interesting.

  352. Mike Spindell says:

    Truth and beauty are in the eyes of the beholder, or the beholder’s bias.

  353. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC: “It sounds to me more like a Grand Jury investigation than a Grand Jury indictment, if that makes sense. Since no indictment was presented by the prosecutor, the grand jury’s task became more than it typically entails.

    Staten Island Grand jury similarly convened for months before not indicting officer. Are these investigations different? Mike?”

    NBC (& Bob), when I think about a grand jury acting in an investigatory capacity, what I think of are cases where the grand jury is using its power to compel testimony to extract new information that would not otherwise be available. Starr and Fitzpatrick’s investigations of White House misconduct are examples of this. The testimony would not be available without the grand jury, and the prosecutor doesn’t have a lot more idea of what is going to be said than the grand jurors. A determination of whether a crime was committed is then made, as the grand jury (and prosecutor) piece together this information.

    The Ferguson Grand Jury didn’t do that. This was a more typical criminal grand jury in that the prosecutor presented evidence to the grand jury that the police and prosecutor had already developed. The prosecutor was able to work with many of the witnesses before they testified, and had a very good idea of what the others would say as a result of their prior voluntary statements. The grand jury wasn’t asked to obtain information, just to evaluate it. And the evidence they were asked to evaluate wasn’t information that was unknown to the prosecution prior to the testimony, it was evidence that the prosecution already knew, and had the opportunity to present with the spin they desired.

    As I pointed out above, weighing evidence isn’t supposed to be part of the probable cause determination. For that matter, it’s not really their role to figure out what they think happened. It’s to decide if a reasonable person (“cautious person” under Missouri law) could look at the evidence and conclude that the accused committed a crime. The more evidence is placed in front of the grand jury, the more difficult it can become for the grand jurors to resist the urge to weigh the evidence, and decide what to do based on what they think probably happened.

    This may explain New York as well, although I’d have to know more before I’d be willing to speculate about that.

  354. Mr. Spindell,

    Thank.you for unbiased reflect and artful literation on the points.

    If an author can bark “twin idiots then civilty rules are different.

    NBC is contrarily sadistic;
    and I,m over sensitive on my case issues.

    Just would be a whole lot more acceptible if the partydid bark law as if the . Party wee a judges clerk.

    I’ll try to be more cordial

  355. Mike Dunford says:

    Anonymous (9:54 am): “Here’s an info-graphic (with additional reference to the forensic evidence showing Wilson’s DNA was detected on Brown’s left palm) if you’re having trouble visualizing just from reading the testimony.”

    Here’s one alternative explanation. There may be more. (Bear in mind that the info-graphic is a WaPo creation, not a forensic one):
    There is a confrontation at/in the window. Wilson gets his weapon, jostling the slide slightly in his haste as he attempts to bring it to bear. He attempts to fire, brings the weapon down to reset the slide, and as a result of excitement or panic discharges the weapon into the door. Brown releases Wilson or breaks free from Wilson depending on which account is accurate, and begins moving back, raising his hand palm out in a protective sort of gesture. Wilson raises the pistol and fires a second round, which grazes Brown’s thumb and continues on out into the beyond.

  356. blouise says:

    bettykath,

    Re the radio call: that’s exactly the way I interpret the timeline which is then given credence by the supervisor/Sergeant’s testimony. This is the point that I would have seen probable cause requiring further analysis through testimony, i.e. a trial.

    Re OJ: I watched every minute of that trial and determined that I, if I were on the jury, would have had to vote to acquit. I have a book somewhere here that I haven’t read yet. The author is William Dear and he points towards the son, Jason. I have to find the time and tackle that book.

  357. eniobob says:

    A local prosecutor announced on Friday he would not seek criminal charges against a Seattle police officer who was shown on video throwing a bone-breaking punch at a woman who was handcuffed in the back of a patrol car.

    King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg (pictured above), whose office handles felony cases in the area, said he would not seek a felony charge against officer Adley Shepherd, 38, according to the Seattle Times newspaper.

    Satterberg declined to file charges despite the urging of Seattle’s city attorney, whose office said the punch “undoubtedly met the felony standard,” the newspaper reported. The city attorney’s office, however, has no jurisdiction to handle felony cases, according to the Times.”

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cop-punched-handcuffed-woman-no-indictment

  358. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC, my friend, I know very little about Laser’s past legal issues and want to know even less. It is possible, if not probable, that res judicata, estoppel, standing, judicial immunity, and other jurisdictional issues do present fatal bars to Laser’s case. But his point about you “barking law” is well taken.

  359. blouise17 says:

    eniobob,

    Our city attorney doesn’t have jurisdiction either but the County Prosecutor does and always, always follows the recommendation of the city atty.

    There have been times that the County Prosecutor has not filed under the reasoning that he/she would not get a conviction thus spending the funds on a trial would not be a responsible use of taxpayers’ money. But I have never heard that reason used in denying a city prosecutor’s recommendation … unless, and this is possible, it was done privately.

    Something isn’t right here. Does this jurisdiction use grand juries?

  360. bettykath says:

    blouise, The possibility of OJ’s son is intriguing. I heard of the book when it first came out but haven’t followed up. Would it change some of the perceptions of OJ if he took the hit in order to protect his son?

  361. Blouise,

    Having known some in the position of city attorney, that strikes as odd too. Their primary job is exactly what the title implies; the counsel for the city itself. For the CA to make that suggestion tells me they are concerned about potential liability in a substantive way.

  362. blouise17 says:

    Gene,

    Exactly. That is why the prosecutor’s response is so odd.

    Good catch, eniobob.

  363. NBC says:

    Mike: But his point about you “barking law” is well taken.

    Woof

  364. blouise17 says:

    bettykath,

    If he were covering for his son then that explains a whole lot. The book was recommended to me by a prosecutor friend (retired from active practise) as he found it compelling.

    I have it in e-book form and just haven’t gotten to it yet.
    O.J. Is Innocent And I Can Prove It’ by William Dear Amazon has the best online price but I bet you could find it for less than $5.00 in a used bookstore. I think it came out in the Spring of 2012

  365. NBC says:

    Mike: You have a right to do that here “my friend”, but then again I have a right to call you out on it and expose it as mean behavior from my viewpoint.

    You raise a good point and I have to remind myself that Laser’s history with the bankruptcy court indeed must have been a tragic one.

    I have seen quite a few legal cases in which the defendant/plaintiff felt that he was not allowed the full justice that he deserved and continues to file motions or cases to find a solution. And while doing so insists on being heard on his grievances even when court rules prohibit the re-litigation of these issues or when court rules require one to address the foundation for the dismissal of a court case, not a re-iteration of the grievances.

    Having said that, you are right, it is too easy to find fault with people and not take into consideration their personal circumstances, and end up hurting said person. I need to be reminded, and remind myself that we are discussing not just issues here but also people.

    Your advise is appreciated and accepted in gratitude. And having just watched a touching video about a father teaching his daughters to say sorry, it is no more than appropriate to take his wisdom into practice. Laser, I am sorry. At times, the argument is more important to me than the person behind it. If it is ok with you, let’s see if we can do a re-start of the relationship in pursuit of justice and compassion.

  366. NBC says:

    eniobob: Satterberg declined to file charges despite the urging of Seattle’s city attorney, whose office said the punch “undoubtedly met the felony standard,” the newspaper reported. The city attorney’s office, however, has no jurisdiction to handle felony cases, according to the Times.”

    Totally mind boggling. The police officer seems well aware of the camera.

    “Officer your so funny”

  367. blouise17 says:

    bettykath,

    And, no, I doubt it will change perceptions. That will happen sometime around 2050 😉

    But the possibility of his sacrificing everything to save his son? That’s beyond intriguing. In fact, I can’t think of a word to describe that sort of sacrifice given that it’s OJ.’s ego involved. Who knows what went on inside that white Broncos as it slowly made its way down the freeway.

  368. blouise17 says:

    Laser, I am sorry. At times, the argument is more important to me than the person behind it. If it is ok with you, let’s see if we can do a re-start of the relationship in pursuit of justice and compassion. – NBC

    Well said

    • Mike Spindell says:

      NBC,

      Thank you.

      And now another request: could you and everyone else, please use quotation marks at least when quoting from another comment, so I could know when their remarks end and yours begin? 🙂

      I say quotation marks because I’ve never quite figured out how to do bold, block quotes or indentations on WordPress. 🙂

  369. NBC says:

    Could the match between the blood found be because of the genetic proximity of his son? 13 markers? There is no statute of limitation for homicide now is there?

  370. NBC

    Accepted.

    Go tothe other thread and post a question and I,ll answer.

  371. NBC says:

    Mike: I say quotation marks because I’ve never quite figured out how to do bold, block quotes or indentations on WordPress. 🙂

    I try to add either the name of the person I am quoting or quotes and yes, blockquotes could be helpful

    Bold>

  372. NBC says:

    I’ll be darned… Simple html tags work

    bold</b<
    italic

    And blockquote

  373. Ladies n germs.. 🙂

    In th interest of fairness, South Carolina just fired an officer (Groupert) who shot a man (Levar Jones)

    And they are prosecuting the officer.

    Niw…here’s a rub

    I find the S. Carolina state trooper had much greater (ignoring bad protocol of gun already drawn) – claim to probable cause. ..than Wilson

  374. NBC says:

    Just be careful with the tags.

    to the administrator would it be possible to turn on editing of comments for 5 minutes or so, allowing people to correct misspellings etc?

  375. NBC says:

    Laser:I find the S. Carolina state trooper had much greater (ignoring bad protocol of gun already drawn) – claim to probable cause. ..than Wilson

    I remember watching the video, the police officers tells the man to get his license, which he does by reaching into his car and is subsequently shot. There was no suspicion of any crime being committed by the victim. And the police officer kept shooting after the hands were clearly up.

    I am not so sure about more probable cause, assuming you mean that you felt that he was more likely to be not indicted?

  376. NBC,

    Not without granting special access privileges. That “preview” functionality is not an option in WordPress. But don’t sweat that kind of thing, honestly. So long as the message gets across, most people don’t care enough about minor error to say anything and it is a given that not everyone is an ace typist.

  377. Not to mention the foibles of people using any form of auto-correct.
    Some of the funniest things I’ve ever read on the Internet are posts by rafflaw where auto-correct has done him hilariously wrong.

  378. NBC says:

    Gene, I was assuming that you run your own wordpress instance which can be significantly modified. I got concerned when I used html tags and made a small mistake resulting in making the text less readable (bold all over).

    However, if it involves special privileges then it makes no sense. No biggy, just one of my random thoughts.

  379. “Gene, I was assuming that you run your own wordpress instance which can be significantly modified.”

    Someday perhaps, but not today.

  380. lOL. Rafflaw is hu,orous without the auto faux pas

  381. The trooper violated protocol by having gun out already.

    His instructions should have been

    Whe r e is your license reg n insurance?

    Upon learning they were in glove; he could have gsve instruction to

    s l o w l y

    Retrieve your credentials

    —————-

    Instead, whatever’s causing enough concern for gun issue, resulted in overreacting when… (and officer said the man MOVED {alarmingly quick})

    The officer was proper enough not to finish guy off, and the stiry says you can hear his concern n apology.

    –_———-__-

    In Wilson,s case he was the Energizer Shot Bunny nd kept

    Going

    N shooting

    And going

    And shooting

  382. bettykath says:

    blouise, book ordered from Amazon – 1 cent plus 3.99 postage for a library discard.

  383. NBC says:

    Laser: In Wilson,s case he was the Energizer Shot Bunny nd kept

    The testimony suggests that it was in response of Brown who kept coming and coming. Physical evidence supports that Brown moved towards Wilson.

    In this case the victim moved away and raised his hands, although we can still hear shots being fired.

    Brown turns around, starts raising his hands, balls his fists and charges. Stop stop stop, bang bang bang bang bang bang. Brown stops momentarily moves again Bang Band Bang Bang (3 seconds after the first six shots if the acoustic evidence is to be accepted). Still not sure of that data was ever presented though.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/26/audio-recording-allegedly-captures-at-least-10-shots-fired-in-michael-brown-killing/

  384. Bob Stone says:

    Gene: “Magic Negro. Honey Badger. One characterization is acceptable and yet the other is not. Interesting.”

    Gene,

    “Honey Badger just takes what it wants; it doesn’t give a shit.”

    And if that was you, Gene, in the video, you’d be a Honey Badger too.

  385. bettykath says:

    Right, Brown charged at about 2.5 mph, slower than an average walk.

  386. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D.: “Here’s one alternative explanation. There may be more. (Bear in mind that the info-graphic is a WaPo creation, not a forensic one):

    “There is a confrontation at/in the window.”

    As Dorian describes?

    “Wilson gets his weapon, jostling the slide slightly in his haste as he attempts to bring it to bear.”

    Using how many hands? One hand on the grip, one hand on the slide, and a third iron grasp on Brown’s neck?

    “He attempts to fire, brings the weapon down to reset the slide,”

    Again, how many hands?

    “and as a result of excitement or panic discharges the weapon into the door. Brown releases Wilson or breaks free from Wilson depending on which account is accurate,”

    According to Johnson, Brown’s hands never entered the vehicle. But the forensics don’t quite back that up; do they?

    “and begins moving back, raising his hand palm out in a protective sort of gesture. Wilson raises the pistol and fires a second round, which grazes Brown’s thumb and continues on out into the beyond.”

    How about Brown’s DNA found on Wilson’s gun and on the left thigh of Wilson’s pants; i.e. where he said the gun was pointed into?

    A possible scenario would be that Wilson propositioned Brown to “touch his gun” and Brown wasn’t sure which one he meant.

    Possible? Yes. But not Probable.

  387. blouise17 says:

    Some of the funniest things I’ve ever read on the Internet are posts by rafflaw where auto-correct has done him hilariously wrong. – Gene

    What was even funnier was when he’d try and correct the error and autocorrect would mess that up too. I used to tell him it was Slarti using super secret math skills and binary numbers to mess with him.

  388. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob: “How about Brown’s DNA found on Wilson’s gun and on the left thigh of Wilson’s pants; i.e. where he said the gun was pointed into?”

    In both cases, the DNA is reported as coming from a RBS (“reddish-brown stain). In other words, from blood. (And Wilson reports, IIRC, that he wiped his hands on his pants at one point.) The blood could have arrived on both pants and blood at several different points after Brown was dead, so while the DNA is not inconsistent with Wilson’s explanation, I don’t think the DNA eliminates other possibilities.

    • Bob Stone says:

      Mike D.: ” I don’t think the DNA eliminates other possibilities.”

      Everything’s possible Mike.

      But three hands?

  389. blouise17 says:

    bettykath,

    I’ll start reading mine late next week. Maybe we can petition the editor-in-chief for one small column in which we may discuss the OJ matter.

  390. NBC says:

    Betty: Right, Brown charged at about 2.5 mph, slower than an average walk.

    That is not the testimony that was given. But at least we seem to agree that Brown turned around and proceeded 20+ feet towards Wilson and that the evidence shows, in addition to several testimony that Wilson back tracked.

    Just out of curiosity though, how did you come to the 2.5 mph number?

    The body was found 150 feet from the car door, he reached the lightpool iirc which is 20-40 feet away and then turned around.

    10 mph is 880 feet per minute or about 10 seconds for 180 feet. 15 feet a second so his return trip was 1.5-2 seconds. How does that compare to the testimony?

    I will do some double checking of the distance etc.

  391. Mike Dunford says:

    Wilson testified that he needed to “rack” the pistol when it failed to fire initially. He testified that he did so while fending off Brown. I’m not the one to blame if this requires three hands.

    • Bob Stone says:

      Mike D.: “Wilson testified that he needed to “rack” the pistol when it failed to fire initially. He testified that he did so while fending off Brown. I’m not the one to blame if this requires three hands.”

      Did Wilson also testify that he was using his left hand to pull Brown into the vehicle by the throat? Or by Brown’s shirt (upon which they found no Wilson DNA)?

      Let me see if I have my count right…

      Q Was there any warning, did he just stuck his hand out and grab, does he say something, did he say anything?

      Dorian “My Name Is Derrick” Johnson: No, ma’am, at this time when the door had closed back on him, he didn’t say anything. His arm almost in an instant came out the window, his left arm, I remember it was his left arm, came out the window and touched Big Mike around his neck area and his throat. I watched his hands, you know, they really tightened up, so yeah, he had a good grip on it, that what’s I saw first.

      My mistake; Wilson has two left hands.

  392. Anonymous says:

    Bob Stone says:
    December 7, 2014 at 11:09 am

    What’s your take on Slarti’s “interpreting” the evidence without even having looked at it?

    I can’t really understand why this person isn’t the least bit curious enough to at least browse the GJ transcripts. Especially after reading this comment:

    There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Brown turned around before his killer started firing.

    Surely anyone who has read even the smallest number of pages of the transcripts would recognize multiple eyewitnesses qualify Wilson’s own testimony that Michael Brown did in fact turn and face Wilson.

    I’m also flabbergasted that so many people object to the grand jurors’ access to evidence, investigating all and as much evidence as possible.

    I am unfamiliar with our judicial system processes, however, one thing I have learned from reading about this case is petit jury courtrooms have strict protocols over admissible evidence.

    Grand juries serve as investigative bodies, and not bodies that determine guilt or innocence, so it makes sense that as much evidence (from multiple federal, state, county and municipal investigators) is optimal.

    I’ve also come to learn that defendants whom are subpoenaed to testify before grand juries are not protected by the 5th Amendment.

    laserDliquidator says:
    December 7, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    Anonymous,

    There are vast possible scenarios for the car altercation.

    As iterated heretofore…

    Broen n friend are in middle of street and Wilson, driving by, having no idea about the store issue barks

    Your scenarios imply that Wilson is guilty of committing a crime against both young men.

    It also possible that Wilson instructed Brown and Johnson to move out of harm’s way…from on coming traffic. Walking in the center of a roadway isn’t a terribly safe means of transiting oneself from point (a) to (b).

  393. Bob Stone says:

    Anonymous,

    I’m actually stuck on an article I’m writing about Johnson’s testimony. There are SO MANY inconsistencies and contradictions that it’s incredibly hard to whittle down without thinking I’ve left out a whopper.

  394. NBC says:

    Evidence and testimony suggest 50 feet or about 3 seconds at 10 mph. 10 mph is quite a fast speed.

  395. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC: “Evidence and testimony suggest 50 feet or about 3 seconds…”

    20 feet, actually, I think. That’s the distance between the furthest blood stain and Brown’s feet.

  396. NBC says:

    Mike: Wilson testified that he needed to “rack” the pistol when it failed to fire initially. He testified that he did so while fending off Brown. I’m not the one to blame if this requires three hands.

    It can be done with one hand. The racking of the gun was something I believe I mentioned as somewhat uncertain as to the how and when.

    Wilson
    So I pulled the trigger, it just clicks that time. Without even looking, I just grab the top of my gun, the slide and I racked it, and I put my, still not looking just holding my hand up, I pulled the trigger again, it goes off.

    Probably not on the second one. I know when I first pulled the trigger it was, but it didn’t shoot and then that’s when I racked the gun and then shot again.
    Q And you used both hands, you had to use both hands to rack the gun?
    A Yes, ma’am.
    Q Was he still trying to hit you when you went to rack the gun?
    A I didn’t look up.

    A right handed person would use his left hand to rack.

  397. NBC says:

    Mike: 20 feet, actually, I think. That’s the distance between the furthest blood stain and Brown’s feet.

    Ah but remember that it the minimum distance. Witnesses had placed him about 50 feet away which would make sense. No blood, then blood, so it must have happened just after he was hit by the first volley of shots, and if he were rushing then all this is quite consistent with Wilson’s description and that of various witnesses.

    Yes the 20 feet is based on the blood evidence, the 50 on the witnesses.

    The Jurors are asking so great questions in Doc 24

    So as far as physical evidence, we have the blood on the ground that was about 21 or 22 feet from where Michael Brown ended up. So we know for a fact that’s a minimum distance he might have advanced and from eyewitness testimony that placed him at the corner of Coppercreek, that dimension looks like it is closer to 48 to 50 feet; is that correct? So that would be like an outer

    They are aware of the tape but no information about duration Time to get the rest of the numbers.

  398. NBC says:

    From my non very scientific evaluation about 2-3 seconds duration of the first salvo. Will download and analyze better

  399. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob: “Did Wilson also testify that he was using his left hand to pull Brown into the vehicle by the throat? Or by Brown’s shirt (upon which they found no Wilson DNA)?”

    I’d say that 3 hands seem to be needed under either Johnson OR Wilson’s account. In Johnson’s account, Wilson was holding Brown. In Wilson’s account, he was fending off Brown while Brown was grabbing the weapon.

    By the way, I’m in full agreement that Johnson was an atrocious witness. I’m giving Johnson’s testimony zero credibility, and the scenario I suggested was vague deliberately vague because I think it could apply in either situation.

  400. Anonymous says:

    Mike Dunford says:
    December 7, 2014 at 1:22 pm

    There is a confrontation at/in the window. Wilson gets his weapon…

    Thanks for providing an interesting possibility. But it leads me to ask: Why would Wilson need to go for his weapon in the first place, unless he felt he was in imminent danger?

  401. NBC says:

    Yes, about 2 seconds of shooting, 3 second pause, 1 second of shooting

  402. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC: “Ah but remember that it the minimum distance. Witnesses had placed him about 50 feet away which would make sense. No blood, then blood, so it must have happened just after he was hit by the first volley of shots, and if he were rushing then all this is quite consistent with Wilson’s description and that of various witnesses.”

    I can’t see a 30 foot gap between Brown getting hit and the first bloodstain.

  403. NBC says:

    Mike: I’d say that 3 hands seem to be needed under either Johnson OR Wilson’s account. In Johnson’s account, Wilson was holding Brown. In Wilson’s account, he was fending off Brown while Brown was grabbing the weapon.

    Not exactly sure about Wilson. Interesting observation. If Wilson had to rack his gun and used two hands then that would be quite an indictment of Johnson’s account. I was looking to indict Wilson’s testimony…

  404. NBC says:

    Mike: I can’t see a 30 foot gap between Brown getting hit and the first bloodstain.

    The testimony is that Brown charged, Wilson shouted stop stop stop and then shot, Brown slowed down but then continued the charge.

    So no I am not arguing a 30 foot gap at all. The 30 foot gap is the maximum distance Brown would have moved before he was shot.

  405. Mike Dunford says:

    I don’t think anyone can do a better job of impeaching Johnson than Johnson did. However, the fact that Johnson’s account is quite likely inaccurate does not mean that Wilson’s must be entirely accurate.

  406. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC: Right. Then there are 21 feet from the first bloodstain (where Brown was shot) to his feet (where he fell). That’s the distance that he traveled in the 3 seconds between the first set of shots and the final burst.

  407. Bob Stone says:

    NBC: “It can be done with one hand.”

    Yes, it is possible; but far from probable.

  408. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D.: “I’d say that 3 hands seem to be needed under either Johnson OR Wilson’s account. In Johnson’s account, Wilson was holding Brown. In Wilson’s account, he was fending off Brown while Brown was grabbing the weapon.”

    The second scenario requires only two hands.

  409. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D.: “I don’t think anyone can do a better job of impeaching Johnson than Johnson did. However, the fact that Johnson’s account is quite likely inaccurate does not mean that Wilson’s must be entirely accurate.”

    Mike,

    Johnson isn’t inaccurate; he’s a liar.

    Wilson’s testimony, unlike Johnson’s, is backed up by forensic evidence.

    You talk about “justice” but it appears to me at this point you’re venturing into the realm of outcome determinism.

  410. Bob Stone says:

    Anonymous: “Why would Wilson need to go for his weapon in the first place, unless he felt he was in imminent danger?”

    And what’s the point in holding a man with one hand if you need only get the drop on him with your gun?

    And… [insert all of Dorian’s absurd claims here.]

  411. Bob Stone says:

    NBC: “If Wilson had to rack his gun and used two hands then that would be quite an indictment of Johnson’s account.”

    Wait; you, of all the posters here, are just realizing this now??

    Why would he shoot a hole in the side of his f’n door if his hand was completely free?

  412. Bob Stone says:

    I really should finish that article on Johnson’s testimony.

  413. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob:

    There’s a lot of space between “Wilson’s story is consistent with the physical evidence” and “the physical evidence proves Wilson’s story.” Even if Johnson is completely full of shit – and I’m not disputing that – there are things that bother me. (By the way, I’ve never considered Johnson’s testimony to be credible; he strikes me as a self-serving little shit.)

    1: I still have a hard time getting the physical layout of the vehicle, Wilson’s account of the struggle, and the physical evidence to line up.
    A: If the first round was the one that wounded Brown (I suspect it wasn’t, based on the blood drop that appears to be on the gouge on the armrest), where was Brown’s hand at the time the shot was fired? Based on the wound, Brown’s hand would have had to be largely off the edge of the barrel – the graze runs along most of the length of the base of the thumb. And where were Wilson’s hands when this took place? And how, exactly, is he managing to largely effectively fend off Brown if both hands were on the pistol and the pistol is down at about the level of his lap (which it would have to be to hit the door where it did).
    B: If the second round was the one that wounded Brown (the round that is nowhere to be found), I have a hard time coming up with a plausible scenario that has Brown struggling for control for the weapon when the shot is fired that would not result in the bullet continuing on into either the car or Brown’s body.

    2: Along the lines of 1, why have we seen no forensic diagram of the path of the bullet that entered the car door? That would go a long way toward showing where Brown’s hands and arms were. Similarly, it doesn’t seem like a reenactment was staged. Again, why? The grand jury was sitting for months, so there was no shortage of time to do either of those things, and it’s not like either one would have been a novel investigation technique.

    These things remain troubling to me even though I extend virtually zero credibility to Johnson’s testimony. (I suspect that Wilson’s initial remark to the pair was closer to Johnson’s account than to Wilson’s, but that’s about the extent of it.)

  414. Uh… because he was pissed

    Nervous

    Stupid….

    As for me… i,m going with pissed

  415. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D: “There’s a lot of space between “Wilson’s story is consistent with the physical evidence” and “the physical evidence proves Wilson’s story.”

    Mike D.,

    Where did the need to “prove Wilson’s story” arise? When did the burden shift? The only reason to find innocence beyond a reasonable doubt is to overturn a wrongful conviction. So unless unless you’ve already convicted him in your mind, i.e. like the protesters, I fail to see the point in the inquiry.

    The purpose of a Grand Jury is not to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what did happen, right down to the last detail; rather it is to determine whether or not there’s probable cause to believe that a crime was committed by the target.

    “The Grand Jury exists as an integral part of Anglo-American jurisprudence for the express purpose of assuring that persons will not be charged with crimes simply because of the zeal, malice, partiality or other prejudice of the prosecutor, the government or private persons.” (United States v. DiGrazia, 213 F. Supp. 232 (N.D. Ill. 1963))

    .

  416. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob:
    I’ve hardly convicted him in my mind. I point out that Wilson’s story is not the only one consistent with the physical evidence for one simple reason: if there is an alternate explanation for the physical evidence that could “warrant a cautious person to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged,” then there is probable cause. Crow v. Crawford & Co., 259 S.W.3d 104, 115 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) (internal quotation and citation omitted). That’s the commonly used definition for probable cause in Missouri.

  417. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D.: “Wilson’s story is not the only one consistent with the physical evidence”

    What other story(ies) are you referring to in particular?

  418. Puhleeaassseee,

    There are infinite number of plausible scenarios, fitting the purported testimonies.

    With much emphasis on purported

  419. NBC says:

    Laser: There are infinite number of plausible scenarios, fitting the purported testimonies.

    That is not a very supportable statement. In fact, the physical evidence, combined with the testimony only leaves a few plausible scenarios where other testimonies can be reconciled by realizing that different people came to the incident at different times. If you came to the incident just before the second volley, you may very well have concluded that he was on his knees, or shot at close range.

  420. NBC says:

    Bob: Wait; you, of all the posters here, are just realizing this now??

    Yep. Guilty as charged. I had seen the event as potentially discrediting Wilson, and failed to recognize the logical implication on Johnson’s testimony.

    I told you that whenever I learn something new, I go over the evidence again, to see what I missed. There is just so much to consider that I have yet to grasp every full detail. I had seen the re-racking as a minor issue, that could be explained if a hand had been over the gun, but never pursued it beyond that.

    The details of the initial misfiring, the wound on Brown’s hand, the soot on his hand, the fact that the bullet never left the car, the droplets… Ah the droplets, one sec… Where is the picture of the blood on the gun.

    Mike: NBC: Right. Then there are 21 feet from the first bloodstain (where Brown was shot) to his feet (where he fell). That’s the distance that he traveled in the 3 seconds between the first set of shots and the final burst.

    Very plausible.

  421. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob:
    OK. I’m proceeding under the view that Johnson is an unreliable petty criminal whose story is motivated primarily by a desire to ensure that he stays off the hook for the robbery. I will therefore disregard all of his testimony. I am also proceeding, for the sake of discussion, under the assumption that Wilson’s account is sufficiently motivated by self-preservation concerns that its credibility could be doubted, and that other police testimony might have been motivated by a desire to shield a colleague.

    For this scenario, I assume that while Wilson was aware of the robbery, he had been distracted enough by the illness call and associated paperwork that not all the details fully registered, and therefore did not connect the pair with the robbery. I’m also not making any attempt to match my scene with any of the other testimony, since I honestly don’t have the time.

    Wilson sees two idiots walking up the middle of the street, says “get the fuck out the street.” One of the two says something to the effect of “we’re almost where we’re going.” As Wilson pulls ahead, he hears one or the other say something to the effect of “fucking pig,” throws it in reverse, and tells them to get the fuck over to the car now. They saunter over. They’re feeling confident because he didn’t bust them immediately that he has no clue about their involvement in the robbery.

    Wilson says something. Brown leans over, hands on window, says “Fuck you, officer.” Wilson reaches out and shoves Brown; Brown pushes Wilson back, striking Wilson on the right side of the face with his left hand. Wilson, enraged, reaches over and grabs his gun, in his haste jostling the weapon. Brown, seeing the gun, reaches in with his right hand to push the gun away. Wilson, now very angry and excited, racks the slide and almost immediately pulls the trigger, putting the round into the door. Brown immediately pulls back, moving toward his left and putting his right hand up, palm out, in a warding-off gesture. Wilson brings the pistol up and fires, at about the point when Brown’s hand is halfway through the window, at a range of about 2 inches. The bullet grazes Browns thumb, sending 3-4 droplets of blood into the car and on the pistol, and depositing a fragment of skin/tissue on the outside of the door. Brown begins moving away from the car.

    Clearly, there might be a self-defense argument to this scenario, but I think the call is a lot less clear here. There’s also a variant possible on this where Brown doesn’t reach in, and the first shot is a negligent discharge caused entirely by Wilson’s fumbling with the firearm.

    Anyway, that one is off the top of the head, and considers only the physical evidence. I cut it at the point where I did to save time/space, but I’m pretty sure other explanations for the remaining physical evidence are possible.

  422. Mike Dunford says:

    Slight edit – when I said “doesn’t reach in” in the second to last paragraph I was just referring to reaching to push the gun away. He would still have reached in to push back at Wilson.

  423. NBC says:

    B: If the second round was the one that wounded Brown (the round that is nowhere to be found), I have a hard time coming up with a plausible scenario that has Brown struggling for control for the weapon when the shot is fired that would not result in the bullet continuing on into either the car or Brown’s body.

    I thought it was found embedded in building 2960 but it could not be removed without doing structural damage. Wilson claims it hit dirt. Wilson mentions that he fired the gun knowing that Brown was still there, but what if he had decided run? There is the first shot, Brown backs up and comes back. The first round was a fight for control of the weapon.

    Q And then the second shot, was his body in contact with you on the second shot?
    A Probably not on the second one. I know when I first pulled the trigger it was, but it didn’t shoot and then that’s when I racked the gun and then shot again.

    So what if Brown sees Wilson rack the gun and runs?

    Q Was he still trying to hit you when you went to rack the gun?
    A I didn’t look up.
    Q Okay. So you said you did that without looking and then you just went like that?
    A Yes.
    Q Turned your face away and shot out the window?
    A Yes.
    Q In his general direction?
    A Yes.

    Blood on left pants

    Wilson had blood on his right hand, but it is hard to imagine how he could transfer this to his left pants. So what if this happened during the struggle for the gun, the shot going off and hitting Brown in the hand. The first shot is that far more likely one as the one that hit Brown.

    Also, no DNA form Wilson was found on Brown.

  424. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC: “Also, no DNA form Wilson was found on Brown.”

    Actually, probable DNA from Wilson was found on the palm of Brown’s left hand, but no DNA was found anywhere else. However, I can’t find any indication that they checked anywhere other than the hands.

  425. NBC says:

    Mike: As Wilson pulls ahead, he hears one or the other say something to the effect of “fucking pig,” throws it in reverse, and tells them to get the fuck over to the car now.

    Slight edit: He first calls in for help. I find that quite important because would he have called in if this was out of rage rather than because he had recognized the couple as possible suspects? The call caused several officers to believe something serious was going on and they rushed.

    I believe you got shot 1 and 2 wrong as to which one injured Brown. Is there a way to verify this from testimony and physical evidence?

    Ah yes, the bullet entry hole into the car seems to have blood in it, suggesting a transfer. Why did he rack the gun for the first shot? It makes sense he would rack it to clear a stovepipe.

    The skin and blood on the door is also more likely a transfer when the hand grabbed the door. And where did the skin come from?… It is not documented clearly. Q11 mucus or skin. Ah it is on a different list than the crime scene pictures. Would be nice to see the picture where the mucus/skin was found. Did they ever decide if it was skin or mucus?

    Ah yes, the autopsy report calls it likely skin. Exterior surface… That’s all…

    But you are asking some good questions.
    Time to revisit.

  426. NBC says:

    Mike: Actually, probable DNA from Wilson was found on the palm of Brown’s left hand, but no DNA was found anywhere else. However, I can’t find any indication that they checked anywhere other than the hands.

    Q1-1 and Q1-2 but yeah I do not think the DNA is that helpful here.

  427. Elaine M. says:

    Soledad Schools CBS Host On Protests: Black Kids Deserve To ‘Survive An Interaction With Police’
    By David December 7, 2014
    http://crooksandliars.com/2014/12/soledad-schools-cbs-host-protests-black

    Excerpt:
    CNN contributor Soledad O’Brien tried to explain to CBS host Bob Schieffer on Sunday that the protests over law enforcement “criminalizing” black communities were about much more than the recent deaths of black men in Missouri and New York.

    “Anybody who thinks that what is happening right now [with the protests across the country] is only about Eric Garner, is only about Michael Brown is really missing what is happening in black America,” she pointed out. “African-Americans feel that they are treated differently in the criminal justice system, they are treated differently under the law.”

    “There is this aggressive targeting of black people,” O’Brien added. “That doesn’t happen in white communities, and it’s that anger over so many years that is really percolating up now.”

  428. po says:

    This Tom Tomorrow cartoon frames this whole debate succinctly and as usual eloquently. Bob, I think he was answering you directly, that jerk!
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/08/1349706/-Cartoon-Lessons-learned#

    • Mike Spindell says:

      Po,

      With that cartoon I rest my case, but I doubt Bob will see the humor in it, or the truth of it.

  429. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D.: “I point out that Wilson’s story is not the only one consistent with the physical evidence”

    When I said “What other story(ies) are you referring to in particular?”

    I was referring to the narratives in evidence.

    What you’re doing is beginning with the physical evidence and building a possible narrative of your own that conforms to it.

    That’s exactly what Dorian Johnson and Piaget Crenshaw did after Baden’s autopsy.

  430. Bob Stone says:

    Race is as relevant to Wilson shooting Brown as voter fraud is relevant to voter ID laws.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “Race is as relevant to Wilson shooting Brown as voter fraud is relevant to voter registration laws.’

      Bob,
      Quite simply you are blind to this issue and not in a positive way. I guess “dem darkies” are protesting around the country because they were stirred up by “outside agitators”. Do you really have so little respect for the intelligence of American people of color as a whole, to think that their outrage stems solely from adverse “propaganda”? Do you think this is all happening because of a “liberal” media? I’m really curious about your viewpoints on this because I think it is critical to understand where you are coming from.

      From your writing so far you have avoided dealing with the contextual issues, focusing entirely on legal matters. Surely you have opinions about the issues beyond and don’t you think you owe us your take on the more global issue of whether or not the police are generally abusing Black people in the US disproportionately? You seem to be avoiding comment on that. Why? You take umbrage if you are accused of bias, but by not addressing what many here see as the larger issue the obvious conclusion is that you have something to hide? Since December 1st Elaine has posted 7 times dealing with the greater context and you have not commented on any of them. Why?

  431. Bob Stone says:

    What’s the matter; you didn’t think you were as capable of lying as the right wing?

  432. Elaine M. says:

    Now–in addition to being called members of the mob and the grievance syndicate–we’re accused of being liars.

  433. Bob Stone says:

    Elaine, when you cite as evidence against a man a proposed “bigger picture” that has nothing to do with the individual, that’s just one version of lying.

  434. Mike Spindell says:

    “What you’re doing is beginning with the physical evidence and building a possible narrative of your own that conforms to it.”

    Which is really a determination of a question of fact. In our Jury System it is the jury that determines questions of fact.

    “a verdict is the formal finding of fact made by a jury on matters or questions submitted to the jury by a judge.”

    In other words a verdict as to the charges. Mike D. has presented an alternative scenario based on the evidence

    When you write: “That’s exactly what Dorian Johnson and Piaget Crenshaw did after Baden’s autopsy.” Determining Johnson’s credibility would be the job of a jury, not a GJ. That is so because a jury is made up of peers of the defendant, A Grand Jury may ostensibly be drawn from the same pool of people, but in truth attracts a different crowd that tend to be older and not regularly working.

  435. “Race is as relevant to Wilson shooting Brown as voter fraud is relevant to voter ID laws.”

    Are you sure that’s your final answer? Keep in mind that voter fraud is a rational offered for voter ID laws and while a literal non-problem in itself in reality gives plausible cover for those seeking to disenfranchise voters traditionally against the conservative (and neoconservative) agendas. Voters who just happen to be as a block significantly composed of minorities.

    Methinks you are suffering from a bit of the ought/is there, Bob.

    Look at the history of race relations with the police in general and in specific for Ferguson in conjunction with the related and contributory problem created by that whole separatist/Brotherhood in Blue mentality plaguing police departments across the nation (and exacerbated by the whole militarization culture and trend).

    It might be wise to take an honest inventory here and reevaluate that statement.

  436. Bob Stone says:

    “Methinks you are suffering from”

    Appeal to tradition as reason for propagating and perpetuating a myth, i.e. false narrative, to generate outrage regardless of facts and evidence?

    Not me.

  437. Not what I said.

    What I said was a specific logical fallacy, Bob. Not an appeal to emotion but rather a recognition of the general environment in which the incident occurred. Nothing happens in pure isolation.

    But if it makes you feel better to think that poor and discriminatory policing is a myth, you go right on ahead.

    I’m sure it makes the kid in you happy that his hero is part of some sacred perfect class by nature of wearing a badge.

  438. Bob Stone says:

    Gene,

    “What I said was a specific logical fallacy”

    And I stated that you were specifically relying on appeal to tradition to make your case at the moment.

    “a recognition of the general environment in which the incident occurred. Nothing happens in pure isolation.”

    That’s a mighty broad brush there Gene. Don’t you think such a broad brush is best suited for parables about God?

    Does that broad brush of yours justify the spreading of false reports and becoming a malicious witness?

  439. Bob Stone says:

    “The Grand Jury exists as an integral part of Anglo-American jurisprudence for the express purpose of assuring that persons will not be charged with crimes simply because of the zeal, malice, partiality or other prejudice of the prosecutor, the government or private persons.” (United States v. DiGrazia, 213 F. Supp. 232 (N.D. Ill. 1963))

  440. Bob Stone says:

    Mike: “I guess “dem darkies””

    That’s where I stopped reading.

  441. Mike Dunford says:

    Bob:
    I was referring to the narratives in evidence.

    What you’re doing is beginning with the physical evidence and building a possible narrative of your own that conforms to it.

    Only an idiot would conclude that Wilson’s story must be true if Johnson’s is a lie. Both have motive to lie; both had opportunities to construct stories.

  442. Righteous indignation swells around the issues and not the particular persons.

    White people are also protesting assertion the nation, because people are getting killed ( more often. Non whites .being killed by.whites)

    Because this is an issue of right n wrong that’s exacerbated by the glaring fact that white cops can kill persons .. especially non..whites, at little or no risk of facing the consequences.jhdges

  443. bettykath says:

    blouise, “I’ll start reading mine late next week. Maybe we can petition the editor-in-chief for one small column in which we may discuss the OJ matter.”

    Sounds good. Book should arrive next week and I’ll try to read it right away.

  444. bettykath says:

    “BTW …Was there a toxicology report on Wilson? Some jurisdictions require it in an officer involved shooting.”

    The only test was for alcohol.

  445. bettykath says:

    Bob, “laser: In general, a defendant who is asserting self defense is allowed to present evidence that the alleged victim had a violent character. This is considered relevant, because it supports an assertion that the alleged victim was the original aggressor. You might not like that approach, but it’s the approach that the law has taken for quite some time.”

    Interesting. Can evidence of violent character of the one asserting self defense be used as evidence, e.g. evidence that a cop has instances of using excessive force or otherwise instigating an altercation? This might show that the cop started the altercation where he is claiming self-defense.

  446. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D. “Only an idiot would conclude that Wilson’s story must be true if Johnson’s is a lie.”

    Is that what I did? However, we did begin with two competing narratives; Johnson’s and Wilson’s. The competition of course being “which is the most truthful.”

    Can you tell me how a “possible” narrative constructed to conform with physical evidence is more truthful than an actual eyewitness narrative conforming to said evidence?

    “Both have motive to lie; both had opportunities to construct stories.”

    What is Johnson’s motive to lie in such detail?

    Were your suspicions of Wilson not based on Johnson’s statements?

    And just a casual observation here, but why would Wilson have motive to lie if he actually acted in self-defense? Wouldn’t his motive be to be as specific as possible?

    For instance:

    Wilson: “While on the sick case call, a call came out for a stealing in progress from the local market on West Florissant, that the suspects traveling towards QT. I didn’t hear the entire call, I was on on my portable radio, which isn’t exactly the best. I did hear that a suspect was wearing a black shirt and that a box of Cigarillos was stolen. (GJT, Vol. 5, pg. 202)

  447. Bob Stone says:

    Bettykath: “Interesting. Can evidence of violent character of the one asserting self defense be used as evidence, e.g. evidence that a cop has instances of using excessive force or otherwise instigating an altercation? This might show that the cop started the altercation where he is claiming self-defense.”

    Bettykath,

    Since the normal rules of evidence are inapplicable, including the MIMIC rule, I’d say yes.

    But that’s a guess since I haven’t looked it up.

  448. “If” he acted in self defense

    Is the entire issue..

    AFTER

    addressing the first issue of

    instigating …

    Instead of mitigating

  449. Bob Stone says:

    Bettykath,

    Check out

    “Missouri’s Law on Admissibility of Other Crimes Evidence: Increasing Inclusivity”
    Justin M. Dean 1999

    http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3405&context=mlr

  450. blouise says:

    Mike: “I guess “dem darkies””

    That’s where I stopped reading. – Bob S

    Why?

  451. NBC says:

    BettyKath: The only test was for alcohol.

    and
    cocaine metabolites
    Amephetamines
    Marijuana matabolite
    Opiates
    Phencyclidine (PCP)

  452. Elaine M. says:

    Bob says that anyone who thinks that race could have possibly been a factor in the shooting death of Michael Brown is lying. He knows for sure that it wasn’t. He doesn’t even have to entertain the thought that Darren Wilson might have a bias against black people. Bob is 100% certain about this because…

  453. Bob Stone says:

    Elaine: “Bob says that anyone who thinks that race could have possibly been a factor in the shooting death of Michael Brown is a lying.”

    That’s not what I said Elaine.

    I said: “when you cite as evidence against a man a proposed “bigger picture” that has nothing to do with the individual, that’s just one version of lying.”

    There’s also claiming the Grand Jury made its decision not to indict Wilson based on an unconstitutional law.

    Elaine: “He knows for sure that it wasn’t.”

    I know for sure that propagating a myth, based on a false narrative, simply to generate outrage against an individual, much less an entire profession, regardless of facts and evidence, is nothing short of an abomination.

  454. We’re not outraged against police.

    We are vexed by the blue wall

    Which included McCullough

  455. blouise says:

    Elaine,

    “Bob is 100% certain about this because…”

    Watch the video he posted of Hannity interviewing Democratic Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. It’s all right there in that clip. All of it including the way he set it up using Hillary Clinton as the lead in. Watch Hannity smile.

  456. NBC says:

    Elaine: Bob is 100% certain about this because…

    A much better statement would be that “I believe that Bob is 100% certain about this because…”

    Understanding Bob is much harder than pigeonholing him. We love to burn strawmen, as the real issues do not ‘burn that well’. And then we complain when the world arounds us catches fire.

  457. NBC says:

    Laser, I understand your feelings about prosecutors. Do you realize that we all come with our biases?

  458. blouise17 says:

    Elaine,

    🙄

  459. That’s funny, Bob.

    Logic is a tool, not a tradition.

  460. Also, speaking of traditions, thanks for inadvertently illustrating that you have no problem with a grand jury acting as finder of fact despite that not being the role of the grand jury in our system.

  461. Elaine M. says:

    Blouise,

    I watched that video more than once. Hannity’s such a fine example of an impartial news figure. He has no agenda. He’s a FOX News superhero working for truth and justice…and the American way. I’ve heard he changes his clothes in a phone booth!

  462. blouise17 says:

    I know for sure that propagating a myth, based on a false narrative, simply to generate outrage against an individual, much less an entire profession, regardless of facts and evidence, is nothing short of an abomination. – Bob S

    But “thug” is okay because generating outrage against an individual is justified in certain cases.

  463. NBC

    Assumptions are the mudders of all F%## ups. (Such as my assumption that..because a Chief federal justice signed my contact and I.performed in good faith… justice would be right…and I was spanked by my naivete) .

    My experience with the systems (Brown, Trayvon, Staten Island and Kelly Thomas all making cases in point)

    Is that, even if corruption knows you are watching.. if the powers that be are large enough (in this case the Blue Wall that McCullough seems to be a part of)… then the hierarchy simply doesn’t.care what the masses (much less what laser haas) thinks.

    Its not bias ..its common sense

    Reptetively reinforced by the facts

    ————————-

    Th issue here is that due process is not allowed to be biased, until the facts are presented, weighed in biasedly and the conclusion of law applied.

    You n the counselor argue the system was unbiased (as you “claimed” to be)

    But you re defending a much greater evil than you care to admit; and are willing to spread BS as godspeak in defense of the tyrannicals

    who are rubbing our noses in it

    I’ll take my common sense caution, due to evidence empirical, any day

    Over your sides defense of tainted process that, in essence, validates my need for more common sense caution.

  464. Eliane,

    And he comes out as oligarchy dog

    The defender of what is right against the. Liberal throng. The tool for tyranny, cronyism and corruption, who is here to.pave the way

  465. blouise17 says:

    Elaine,

    There’s a certain segment of the population who thoroughly enjoyed that video. What’s the phrase for that? Journalistic voyeurism?

    Forget Hannity. Think about the audience Hannity is smiling at.

  466. (Forgive me)

    He can.leap buildings of truth with a single bull chit bully expound

    He’s faster with inbred condescending banter and “loco” motives

    Able to stop bullets by the flick of his wrist, except for those by a white cop aimed at poor youths amiss.

  467. NBC says:

    Bob: Wilson: “While on the sick case call, a call came out for a stealing in progress from the local market on West Florissant, that the suspects traveling towards QT. I didn’t hear the entire call, I was on on my portable radio, which isn’t exactly the best. I did hear that a suspect was wearing a black shirt and that a box of Cigarillos was stolen. (GJT, Vol. 5, pg. 202)

    Excellent observation. I agree that when trying to understand the veracity of statements, looking at elements which serve to weaken rather than strengthen the argument can be helpful. And this is important because testimony also indicates that there are areas where the radios do not work. First transmission ceases, then reception. That’s understandable given the difference in signal strength.

    Now it is very well possible that Wilson was informed after the incident and before he interviewed, of the details of the robbery and was allowed to create a story. But such a story would tend to focus on supporting his innocence.

    The sergeant who showed up at the scene testified that he had an initial conversation with Wilson which was not recorded.

    Wilson does not mention the reason he had backed up or that he had backed up.He does mention that Brown ran and he pursued saying ‘stop’ and that Brown eventually turned around and raised his arms, and then charged him. When he took a step forward he shot him

    The statement that Wilson claimed he did not know about the call (robbery) was made 5 or 6 days after the event when he talked to Wilson.

    The investigating County Officer arrived on the scene after Wilson had left. He did a cursory interview which has not been recorded. He met with Wilson, and his attorney at the police station. They met again at the hospital since Wilson was told to have them look at his injuries.

    He tells me that he was leaving an unrelated sick case call and was driving, it would be west on Canfield Road. As he’s driving he hears a call that was not assigned to him for a stealing in progress at 9101 West Florissant Avenue, and he provides us with that address and the nature of the call was a stealing.

    He said that the call comments indicated the suspect description was a black male wearing a black shirt and brown shorts, and that an additional call comment indicated that taken during the stealing were Cigarillos.

    The next is interesting

    At that point does he say that he investigates these two for stealing Cigarillos, does he mention anything to them about the theft?
    A He doesn’t say anything like that to me.
    Q Okay. Go ahead.
    A Officer Wilson, Officer Darren Wilson then tells me that he got on his radio and says that he’s
    going to be conducting, notifies his dispatcher he is conducting a pedestrian check and he requests an assist car.

    After that, Officer Wilson, he continues and states that subject then reaches backwards with his left hand, and basically removes his left hand and arm from the vehicle and hands something to the other subject and says, “here, take this,” is what Officer Wilson says that he hears the larger subject say.
    He did not, nor did I ask, describe what he thought was handed off, but he said that he handed something.

    and

    Q Okay. Does he ever mention anything about some Cigarillos?
    A Are you speaking of Officer Darren Wilson?
    Q Yes.
    A The only thing he mentions about Cigarillos was during his recollection of the initial call, comments for the stealing in progress at 9101 West Florissant. It was never addressed after that or brought up.

    Interesting…

    The next interview is at the St Louis Police Department. This one is recorded and takes place the next day.

    I observe the lack of details about why he backed up, and no mention of the cigarillos other than that he heard the call going out and that something was handed over.

    This creates a plausibility of a scenario that he backed up to follow up on the interaction he had with them. He tried to open the door and it ran into Brown. Things escalated. Did Wilson embellish his testimony to cover for his actions that led up to the shooting? We may never know.

  468. You mean the “wink wink” we’re having at it, for at least 2 years

    To the “GOOD ole boys”?

  469. bettykath says:

    NBC: “BettyKath: The only test was for alcohol. and cocaine metabolites, etc.

    Source?

  470. NBC

    That retell of others thoughts and speaks, by your comment at 3:47 just now,

    Is the second, most purist remark.. fsir.. that I’ve witnessed of you to dste.

    KUDOs

  471. And we could have (perhaps) have known… if the case wasn’t tainted by McCullough and given a ..FAIR .. chance for trial.

    The impeach, by his own words and these much more honest agents (making the pullover an issue of mitigating instead of instigating) by the lack of knowledge of the store incident

    Is just cause,.of itself, to remand to trial. In re Brady, In re Giglio (Brady materials) doesn’t only apply to prosecutors.

    Once an officer has bern documented to have provided conflicting testimony

    All else said witness states

    Isn’t worth a grain of salt.

    ————–_________———–

    ANY embelish by Officer Wilson mandated just cause to go to trial

    And such would have transpired

    If McCullough,s team had ended with pointing out this paramount discrepancy

  472. Elaine M. says:

    Ferguson grand jury documents withheld
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/08/ferguson-grand-jury-documents-withheld/20072311/

    Excerpt:
    ST. LOUIS — In spite of St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch’s promises to make all witness testimony in the Michael Brown shooting case public so he could show the process was fair and impartial, McCulloch’s office now acknowledges that it kept some records secret at the behest of federal authorities who are still investigating the incident.

    The acknowledgment came after a review by KSDK-TV found several key documents were missing from the thousands of pages released by McCulloch’s office on Nov. 24, shortly after the prosecutor announced that the grand jury had decided not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for killing the unarmed teen.

    McCulloch’s executive assistant, Ed Magee, said the office released everything it still had when the case was closed, but had “turned over and relinquished control” of some FBI’s interviews conducted in connection with the shooting.

    Dorian Johnson interview withheld

    A team of investigative reporters from around the country reviewed the transcripts released by McCulloch’s office, which included law enforcement interviews with 24 witnesses. Most conspicuous in its absence was the joint federal-county interview with the witness who had been closest to the deadly confrontation, Michael Brown’s friend Dorian Johnson.

  473. WOW….

    Why?

    Speculation on the reasons why the FBI kept their interviews of a key witness

    will create great fodder

  474. Bob Stone says:

    Gene: “Logic is a tool, not a tradition.”

    Past justifications for the tradition of scrutinizing racial motives of cops are still valid presently?
    Nothing ever changed?

  475. Mike Dunford says:

    NBC:

    This creates a plausibility of a scenario that he backed up to follow up on the interaction he had with them. He tried to open the door and it ran into Brown. Things escalated. Did Wilson embellish his testimony to cover for his actions that led up to the shooting? We may never know.

    Yes. And one of the reasons we may never know is that these were questions that were not asked when Wilson was testifying in front of the grand jury.

  476. NBC says:

    Laser: Its not bias ..its common sense

    The two may be easily confused.

    Th issue here is that due process is not allowed to be biased, until the facts are presented, weighed in biasedly and the conclusion of law applied.

    Self defense is an absolute defense and would be a conclusion of law, as determined by a judge based on the facts. When the Judge rejects the absolute defense, then a case may proceed. However, i am not familiar with how and when such a determination is made. I presume during the pre-trial motions. Due process also may not be biased towards rejecting that the police officer has a right under the 5th amendment, or in this under Mo Constitution and statute to a preliminary hearing or a Grand Jury.

    You n the counselor argue the system was unbiased (as you “claimed” to be)

    I never claimed that I am unbiased, on the contrary, we all have biases. The goal is not to deny biases but to accept them, be aware of them and mitigate them. I also explained that the system is biased in many ways: For example, it seeks indictments in most all cases involving officer involved shootings, people are more likely to accept the reasonable nature of use of force by a police officer given his duties involved and the split second nature of having to take decisions. Unlike in other self defense cases, a police officer does not have a requirement/duty to back off (ignoring the stand your ground laws in some states). The system is biased against the officer in that there is an objective reasonable standard for self defense.

    But you re defending a much greater evil than you care to admit; and are willing to spread BS as godspeak in defense of the tyrannicals

    I understand your biases about the ‘tyrannicals’, and yet you are mistaking my objections to your claims, as if they are to support the law firms or Romney or anyone else. My goal is to have you understand the standards for perjury, the relevance of legal bars such as jurisdiction, the Barton Doctrine and Res Judicata and the goal of an appeal. Finding problems in these areas does not mean that your overall case has/had no merit, just that it was not heard because of problems with proper prosecution. And yes, there is nothing as rotten as not having your case be heard beyond the initial ruling by the Bankruptcy Judge.

    So no, I am not defending the lawyers, the prosecutors, the judges, beyond what is reasonably inferred from the claims raised and the motions served.

    Reaching an informed judgment about the merits of your claims requires a lot, lot more time and effort. And I am more than willing to spend my time doing so if this would make a difference.

    And fair or unfair, when I evaluate particular claims I often overcompensate by being more biased against the purveyor of said claims, to avoid any biases caused by my endeavor to figure out what happened. And yes, that is a bias itself, which I try to compensate for by listening to additional arguments presented, either here or in the various filings in court, to better understand the issues raised.

    As you may have found out, in law suits, there are a variety of bars that need to be overcome as to admissibility of ‘evidence’, the requirements of standing and jurisdiction, none of which give one necessarily an impression of justice, especially when they are used against you. And yet, they all serve important purposes and need to be addressed.

    From the moment Alber filed a motion to intervene, it was clearly an uphill battle to overcome the requirements of even being heard. Bias or barrier? Yes, when making claims and arguments, the burden of proof falls on the side of those making the claims, and the burden is significant and not that easy, as I tried to point out.

    Am I being a contrarian, to a certain extent, yes, but it serves a purpose to me that I believe to be important. It’s too easy to fall into group thinking so I question, question and question. I question myself, I question assumptions and I question … Does that make me unbiased? By no standard of the meaning of the term.

    So is the system unbiased? Not at all, however there are ways to mitigate these problems.

    In your cases, my first step was to look at the reasons the courts accepted and/or rejected the claims. That sets a standard to overcome. The judge is biased by submission from both sides, and he makes an effort to make a ruling based on the facts and based on the laws.

    I have more to say here but not in this thread.

  477. blouise17 says:

    Elaine,

    If the Feds don’t file, I doubt we will ever see those documents. However, an expert in what does and does not constitute a “public record” would know better than I.

    I wonder if Johnson is under Federal Witness Protection?

    See you all later this week.

  478. Bob Stone says:

    “Dorian Johnson interview withheld”

    I can’t believe USA Today is just figuring this out now!

    Holy Crap!

  479. Bob Stone says:

    Blouise: “I wonder if Johnson is under Federal Witness Protection?”

    Piaget Crenshaw’s interview is available, but not Johnson’s? Finally someone filed a FOIA request to get it. My suspicion is it makes Holder look bad.

  480. Bob Stone says:

    Blouise: “But “thug” is okay because generating outrage against an individual is justified in certain cases.”

    How about
    bully, gangbanger, gangsta, gangster, goon, gorilla, hood, hooligan, mobster, mug, plug-ugly, punk, roughneck, rowdy, ruffian, hoodlum, tough, toughie

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thug

    Or is it now permissible to co-opt the English language to fortify a position?

    And not for nothing, I called Brown a Honey Badger. In fact, I can’t even recall using that word; despite Mike’s multiple accusations to the contrary.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      “How about bully, gangbanger, gangsta, gangster, goon, gorilla, hood, hooligan, mobster, mug, plug-ugly, punk, roughneck, rowdy, ruffian, hoodlum, tough, toughie”

      Bob,

      How about being intentionally obtuse? Thug, or those other words have negative connotations and if you don’t understand that than I suggest you supplement your needed reading comprehension course with one that deals with social etymology. The accusation was that your use of thug to describe Michael Brown showed a deliberate bias on your part. That’s fine but then you are either a hypocrite, or a liar for accusing everyone who disagrees with of being biased liars. Are you so unaware as to not get it, or is it that you are protecting your personal self-esteem?

      “Mike: “I guess “dem darkies””
      That’s where I stopped reading”

      How utterly convenient of you as an excuse for the fact that you keep avoiding answering the questions I’m posing to you:

      “Do you really have so little respect for the intelligence of American people of color as a whole, to think that their outrage stems solely from adverse “propaganda”? Do you think this is all happening because of a “liberal” media? I’m really curious about your viewpoints on this because I think it is critical to understand where you are coming from.

      From your writing so far you have avoided dealing with the contextual issues, focusing entirely on legal matters. Surely you have opinions about the issues beyond and don’t you think you owe us your take on the more global issue of whether or not the police are generally abusing Black people in the US disproportionately? You seem to be avoiding comment on that. Why? You take umbrage if you are accused of bias, but by not addressing what many here see as the larger issue the obvious conclusion is that you have something to hide? Since December 1st Elaine has posted 7 times dealing with the greater context and you have not commented on any of them. Why?”

      Bob you talk a good game of looking at evidence, but when it comes down to issues beyond, you clam up and fail to respond. A good lawyerly strategy often doesn’t work in the real world of ideas.

      • Bob Stone says:

        Mike: “The accusation was that your use of thug to describe Michael Brown showed a deliberate bias on your part.”

        Both you and Blouise accuse me of using the word “thug” to describe Brown. Yet neither one of you have shown me where I used it.

        And when I try to find my “sinful” language, I only seem to find you, Blouise and Elaine using it in many different instances and contexts.

        I’m pretty sure I used “Honey Badger” to describe Brown for the simple reason that it perfectly described his actions in the robbery video and the PC police hadn’t co-opted the term yet.

        I’m not perfect. Perhaps I did use the word to describe Brown. However, if I did, it wouldn’t necessitate a racist intention since I’ve also used the word “thugs” to describe the Hanson Brothers in the film “Slap Shot.”

  481. NBC says:

    Mike: Yes. And one of the reasons we may never know is that these were questions that were not asked when Wilson was testifying in front of the grand jury.

    Perhaps, or perhaps because it is one testimony weighed against the other. Should they have been asked? The Grand Jury clearly was aware of some of these issues, yet they too did not ask Wilson. Wilson was asked about the Sergeant’s testimony that he did not know about the robbery and denied having said this, and his earliest comments support Wilson here. Similarly, Wilson did not mention the cigarillos, nor the reason for engaging the pedestrians the second time.

    PS, as a side note, the handing over of the cigarillos supports and contradicts Johnson. It supports his claim that Brown handed over the cigarillos, it contradicts his claims, as I understand them, that he was on the right hand side of Brown. Most all evidence suggest that he was on the left of Brown, standing towards the front of the vehicle. What troubles me about the handing over of the cigarillos is that Brown had the clarity of thought to hand them to his partner, while defending himself from attacks by Wilson. I have in general a harder time accepting the scenario that he was held by Wilson, given that Wilson had at times only one hand available, and in some instance perhaps none. Also given the leverage of the car door, Brown’s position to free himself seems to have been quite favorable to getting away. I know, probable cause does not work in both directions equally. However, there is also an unequal balance when it comes to the number of jurors that have to vote one way or the other.

    Let’s reverse the scenario, as you have done: Officer Wilson ‘stops’ two people and tells them rudely to get onto the sidewalk. They return with similar disregard for polite interchange. Wilson alls in that he is stopping two pedestrians and needs backup. He then reverses and in his haste almost knocks down the two pedestrians. And when he tries to open the door it hits Brown’s leg/belly and Wilson believes that Brown is resisting.

    What relevance would/could/should this have on the Grand Jury? It’s partially a rhetorical question, and partially one which may not have been that important in the decision not to indict. Then again, it only takes four to sit on the fence for an indictment not to happen. That’s a much lower bar for the accused than I had originally realized. A conclusion not to indict does not require 9 of the 12, it only requires 4 of the 12.

    So assume for a moment, that some or all of the Grand Jurors focused on the events that led to the actual death of Brown, not the incident that preceded it (and yes, I know, it is logically speaking not separate.)

    These are all pure speculations and I understand that the bar on probable cause may be low, however the bar to reach that bar is biased towards the accused, as it requires 9 of the 12 to indict and only 4 to not indict.

  482. I thank you for helping me win the bet with the retired compliance officer.

    Your opine, can never trump my expertise in the matter.

    Especially when you tucked tail; because the truth, evidences a.d “controlling” case. Law didnt node well for your fallacy positions

  483. Elaine M. says:

    Another excerpt from that same USA Today article:

    It appears that Johnson’s statement to the FBI isn’t the only witness statement missing from the public record.

    McCulloch’s office labeled the witness interview transcripts it released by witness number, up to Witness #64. But only 24 different witnesses’ interviews with law enforcement were included in the information released.

  484. NBC says:

    Laser: Speculation on the reasons why the FBI kept their interviews of a key witness

    I believe the relevant term is “investigation in progress” however, they did release other statements. Are they perhaps investigating Johnson’s role further?

    blouise: If the Feds don’t file, I doubt we will ever see those documents. However, an expert in what does and does not constitute a “public record” would know better than I. I wonder if Johnson is under Federal Witness Protection?

    Well, the law is on the side of the police while there is an active investigation. After that, the law may become less clear but I would presume it to be against publication under FOIA/Sunshine statutes.

    The Feds will be under quite some pressure to release the documents, lacking a valid investigative reason to not doing so.

  485. Holder needs no help in looking bad, he’s done a proper Covington job of protecting special interests

    And his replacement is just a NY version of himself

  486. Bob Stone says:

    NBC: “This creates a plausibility of a scenario that he backed up to follow up on the interaction he had with them. He tried to open the door and it ran into Brown. Things escalated. Did Wilson embellish his testimony to cover for his actions that led up to the shooting? We may never know.”

    NBC,

    No it doesn’t. You’re lending credence to a lie.

    Johnson: At the time I believe he was talking to both of us. Like I said, Big Mike never said anything when the officer pulled up on us. So at the time I believe he was talking to both of us when he said, “what did you say?” And Big Mike, in an instant, Big Mike was finished saying something, his door was thrust open, very complex, he thrust his door open real hard. We was so close to the door that it hit mostly Big Mike, but it hit me on my left side and it closed back on him, like real fast. Just the same speed, boom, boom, that fast.

    Q: Where did you say that the door hit you? (pg. 82)

    Johnson: The door hit me on my left side, left arm, not my whole body because Big Mike is so big he takes more of the door than me, but just a piece of my arm and a piece of my body. (pg. 83)

    Comment: And yet “it almost knocked the wind out of him.”

    Compare Johnson’s story during Al Sharpton Interview 8/12/2014

    JOHNSON: The door ricocheted off our bodies. Not like we had our hands up because we didn`t know — we wasn`t ready for the speed that he opened his door. So, it wasn`t like we braced ourselves. It almost knocked the wind out of me.

  487. Release the whitey Cracker,n (Kraken)

    That silly beast, oligarch dog,s kryptonite and the spoiler of WASP rules of oppression

    The inflexible, immortal sword of truth!

  488. NBC says:

    Probable cause determinations are not supposed (in Missouri) to involve weighing conflicting evidence:

    “The main difference between a probable cause standard and a preponderance of the evidence standard is that probable cause does not require the fact-finder to weigh conflicting evidence.”

    Does not require is not as strong as ‘prohibit’ either. In the end, the Grand Jury makes it decision, and we may wonder about the standards they used, not the standards they should have used. The problem with GJ is that whatever conclusion they reach is presumed to be based on probable cause, which makes probable cause so fluid a concept. One cannot easily attack a GJ finding by claiming that there was no probable cause because a GJ finding is evidence of a probable cause. That and the secrecy of the GJ makes it hard to understand what standards are actually used.

    I am still troubled/confused about the role of the jury in establishing probable cause that Wilson did not have an absolute defense of self defense and how a jury would go about doing this. The self defense standard itself is quite low as it requires objectively reasonable and the immediate threat of a crime that would allow for self defense.

    Do you see my hesitation here? It’s a probable and reasonable combination that seems to raise the standard or probable cause, perhaps incorrectly or inadvertently.

    A low standard to find probable cause but a high standard to find no self defense.

    I can certainly appreciate why most indicted officers still are not convicted. As a reasonable doubt is a pretty low bar when there is a low bar to an absolute defense. How this plays out in a preliminary hearing/Grand Jury is less clear to me.

  489. Bob Stone says:

    Gene: “Also, speaking of traditions, thanks for inadvertently illustrating that you have no problem with a grand jury acting as finder of fact despite that not being the role of the grand jury in our system.”

    Missouri State Constitution

    Article 1, Section 16. Grand juries—composition—jurisdiction to convene—powers.

    That a grand jury shall consist of twelve citizens, any nine of whom concurring find an indictment or a true bill: Provided, that no grand jury shall be convened except upon an order of a judge of a court having the power to try and determine felonies; but when so assembled such grand jury shall have POWER TO INVESTIGATE and return indictments for all character and grades of crime; and that the power of grand juries to inquire into the willful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments in connection therewith, shall never be suspended.

    Investigate: (verb) to carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts of (an incident, allegation, etc.) so as to establish the truth.

  490. NBC says:

    blouise: It appears that Johnson’s statement to the FBI isn’t the only witness statement missing from the public record.

    Check the ‘care’ documents. I initially did not realize how much information they contain about witnesses, etc. Would be interesting to see how many were found, came forward, versus the number of witnesses “identified”.

    The potential juvenile who was in the car with his parents for example. His parents must have had a similarly advantageous viewpoint. Did they testify? Did they testify before the GJ?

    The boy also observed a girl that would have been a witness. Was she ever found? Interviewed?

  491. NBC says:

    Laser: That silly beast, oligarch dog,s kryptonite and the spoiler of WASP rules of oppression

    No need to share with us your biases, just be aware of them.

  492. Me too.

    Is there a link that details Mo. standards-based, protocols and laws on Grand Juries?

    Apropos question worthy of its own thread. .don’t you think?

  493. NBC says:

    Bob: Article 1, Section 16. Grand juries—composition—jurisdiction to convene—powers.

    Yes, combine that with the statutes and one is to conclude what? In the case of Brown, there was no charges filed by the prosecutor, so the GJ would have been more open ended in its investigation.

    To what extent did the GJ influence the calling of witnesses etc?

  494. NBC says:

    Laser: Hypocrit!

    As I said, we all have biases. You do a good job at helping us understand some of yours. I similarly try to share what I believe to be mine.

  495. NBC says:

    Laser: Is there a link that details Mo. standards-based, protocols and laws on Grand Juries?

    Excellent questions. I looked at the statutes some time ago, and they appear to be quite general and not too helpful. I can provide some links

    2013 Missouri Revised Statutes
    TITLE XXXVII CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Chapter 540 Grand Juries and Their Proceedings

    I will check rules of criminal procedure as well. Then it’s time to look at legal precedent.

    It’s important to remember that the State Grand Juries are not covered by the 5th Amendment of the US as that part was never incorporated to the States under the 14th Amendment.

  496. NBC says:

    Bob: No it doesn’t. You’re lending credence to a lie.

    I am not lending credence to Johnson’s lie, but Johnson’s lie is not necessarily evidence that Wilson did NOT lie. There lies my problem.

    Both sides could be lying. There are some components found in both testimony that can be used to establish some truth such as the box of cigarillos being handed over or the first shot being fired. Johnson never testifies to hearing a second shot, but witnesses indicate that Johnson ran with the first shot. On most issues, Johnson and Wilson’s testimony diverge quite a bit, making it harder to tell what components are accurate. Johnson testifies for example that the first shot hit Brown in the shoulder but the first shot appears to have hit the car, so was this the second shot? How does this reconcile with the hole in the building across from the shooting? Need to read up on the testimony there. I know the ‘bullet’ was never recovered, so was there a bullet, and was it relevant to the shooting?

    • Bob Stone says:

      NBC,

      It’s not a simple matter of averages.

      What is Johnson lying about? What questions during his testimony before the GJ send him into a tailspin? Why? What is his motive in lying about those specifics?

      • NBC says:

        Well, one could be his fear of being prosecuted? One witness testified that Wilson hit the outside mirror and something shiny fell from his wrist.

        Imagine the surprise that indeed a bracelet was recovered close by that matched that description?

  497. NBC says:

    Darn.. 2960…

    During the investigation at the scene, Detective [redacted] also noted and directed his attention to the apartment building known and numbered as 2960 Canfield Drive. Detective [redacted] observed this building’s exterior consisted of brick and vinyl siding. On the north side of this building, was damage consistent with having been struck by a projectile. The damage was to the vinyl siding above the easternmost window on the first level. Detectives from the Saint Louis County Police Department’s Crime Scene Unit attempted to extract a possible projectile from the building but were unable to do so due to the construction of the building and the significant structural damage that would have been required to remove an item. The interior of the building was checked and there was no penetration to the interior of the apartment.

    No x-rays…

  498. NBC says:

    Hole in 2960 Canfield

  499. The” crit” note is that you take liberties (such as speaking for “us”)

    And have the gall to tell me not to do what you exude all the time.

    And even state “we all have”; but I’m forbidden to do what ( in your opinion) is bias.

    Truth is a switch bitch upon the myths witch. ….

  500. Perfect note counselor..

    Now switch the name to Wilson

    And go have a hissy fit.

  501. Uh, he has a crush on Eliane and he,s afraid he might say something nice that would spoil his overlord image(?)

    Just sayin….its possible

    (May not be legal in Bob,s world. I dont know. Havent found out where his multiple hats of hyperbole and legal protocol gets its authority from)

  502. NBC says:

    Laser: Perfect note counselor.. Now switch the name to Wilson

    DId he testify to evidence that was not supported by the facts? Wilson’s testimony has been consistent, internally and externally. Johnson’s, not so much. Even Mike D observes how Johnson impeached himself/was impeached.

    I will have to re-read the testimonies again to compare Johnson and Wilson when it came to probing questions. I have found out the hard way, that I am still missing details.

  503. NBC says:

    Laser: And even state “we all have”; but I’m forbidden to do what ( in your opinion) is bias.

    You are not getting the point. We all have is a simple observation that we all have biases. I was just complimenting you on sharing them with us. It’s important, not just for yourself, but also for others, to understand what biases are/may be involved and how they are being mitigated.

    I am hardly arguing that you are forbidden from doing this. On the contrary, I find it very helpful.

  504. NBC says:

    Mike S: From your writing so far you have avoided dealing with the contextual issues, focusing entirely on legal matters. Surely you have opinions about the issues beyond and don’t you think you owe us your take on the more global issue of whether or not the police are generally abusing Black people in the US disproportionately? You seem to be avoiding comment on that. Why?

    Because it is not as clear as some of the data may have suggested. I personally find it hard to believe that the police is free from biases, but to extend that to ‘the police are generally abusing black people in the US disproportionally’ needs a lot more effort.

    So I can appreciate Bob’s refusal to get involved in such a discussion. Especially when it comes to legal questions. Yes, there may be bias, and ‘common sense’ may inform one that such bias exists but to what extent and consequence is not that clear to me.

  505. Bob Stone says:

    NBC: “Imagine the surprise that indeed a bracelet was recovered close by that matched that description?”

    Johnson is wearing the yellow bracelet on his right wrist in the robbery video.

  506. I get your point alright.

    You know as much as an IBM mainframe and activists /victims such as I are unworthy of you and your lordship,s time of day.

    if you would have at least 10% pure moments of licit, non agenda discussion, as the 3 out of 100,s of knowbit all / meanies bantering you are being immortalized for (as long as the server hosting this Blog has redundancy backup protection)

    Then maybe, you might be less condescending upon us wee liddle people

    And more like. Progressive you claim to be.

  507. Bob Stone says:

    NBC,

    Regarding that bracelet:

    The following information documents the Saint Louis County Police Department’s investigative activities on
    Friday, August 22, 2014.

    At approximately 10:00 a.m., Detective spoke by phone with Attorney Freeman Bosley Jr. at
    and requested Dorian Johnson make himself available in order to obtain a sample of his DNA for elimination purposes. Bosley indicated he would speak with Johnson and get back with Detective

    Bosley later contacted Detective by phone and indicated Johnson would not consent to providing a DNA sample.

  508. Bob,

    Your having “set up” the item with the “gothca” video post haste behind, followed by the DNA sample refusal..

    Means what…exactly?

  509. NBC says:

    Laser: You know as much as an IBM mainframe and activists /victims such as I are unworthy of you and your lordship,s time of day.

    And yet, I spent quite a few hours and money to examine your claims. Funny how the facts can be.

    I observe that you really have problems with people who disagree with you and then lash out in anger. May I suggest reason, logic or fact as an alternative?

  510. NBC says:

    Laser: Your having “set up” the item with the “gothca” video post haste behind, followed by the DNA sample refusal..

    Well, we know that Dorian claimed that he was hiding from the police because he feared they were looking for him for his involvement. Bob was asking for motives as to why Johnson may be lying and I provided some relevant facts that may help understand Johnson’s behavior during the incident, and possible liability.

    The refusal to provide DNA is interesting. Can you see why Dorian would refuse such a request? And yes, I understand the ‘unreasonable search’ protection. However, of what does the presence of the bracelet inform us? Does it show a mostly uninterested bystander watching in fear and shock what is happening to his friend? So why do you think Johnson’s testimony was so unbelievable to many?

  511. NBC says:

    Laser: And more like. Progressive you claim to be.

    Such as interested in the truth, wherever it may lead? Luckily progressives have a higher tolerance to deal with data that disagrees with them.

  512. I have problems with know it alls, who argue bull as fact; and state (hypocritically) that they’re doing such in the pursuits of justice.

    Only to tuck tale and run when the facts and law trounced their original position thunderously.

  513. NBC says:

    In Johnson’s defense, few if any witnesses remember seeing him. Other than the one which said he hit the mirror and the bracelet fell.

  514. Correct,

    Exactly as this progressive is doing with you.

  515. NBC says:

    Laser: I have problems with know it alls, who argue bull as fact; and state (hypocritically) that they’re doing such in the pursuits of justice.

    Well, in that case, it behoves you to point to ‘bull’ that is argued to be fact. Do you understand the concept of a hypothesis? It’s an attempt to formulate a reasonable explanation and then venture out to test how well evidence supports or contradicts said formulation.
    Then there is the concept of ‘thought experiment’ which allows one to go through different scenarios.

    In the end, all these scenarios stack up against the evidence and the ‘best’ one wins.

    it’s not about being a ‘know it all’ it’s about trying to address it from multiple angles. It helps when one is familiar with the evidence and testimony as it simplifies the evaluation of said ‘knowledge’ with other variables, observations etc.

  516. NBC says:

    Laser: Exactly as this progressive is doing with you.

    Yes, we have all witnessed how well you deal with contrary evidence or arguments. Such as my observation that perjury requires a willful component or that no fingerprints were taken from the gun. Need I go any further? Now compare that to me revising my position on probable cause.

    Do you see a pattern?

  517. NBC says:

    Laser: Only to tuck tale and run when the facts and law trounced their original position thunderously.

    Remember our perjury discussion or our discussion about fingerprints on the firearm? I do rest my case, and present evidence to contradict your claims.

  518. NBC says:

    Mike: “The accusation was that your use of thug to describe Michael Brown showed a deliberate bias on your part.”

    Well, having seen the video in the store and Johnson’s testimony, would the description be that inaccurate or indefensible?

    It’s like Barkley calling the looters and arsonists ‘scumbags’. Unreasonable given the circumstances? Is he too a racist?

  519. NBC says:

    Missouri Sunshine Law

    Each law enforcement agency of this state, of any county, and of any municipality shall maintain records of all incidents reported to the agency, investigations and arrests made by such law enforcement agency. All incident reports and arrest reports shall be open records. Notwithstanding any other provision of law than the provisions of subsections 4, 5 and 6 of this section or section 320.083, investigative reports of all law enforcement agencies are closed records until the investigation becomes inactive. If any person is arrested and not charged with an offense against the law within thirty days of the person’s arrest, the arrest report shall thereafter be a closed record except that the disposition portion of the record may be accessed and except as provided in section 610.120.

    But I remember now, this is the FBI, so we need to look at Federal FOIA.

  520. You are doing a hissy fit disigenuous
    .

    You know you tucked tail on the Holder thread. When, given your expertise in perjury issues, you argued admittances arrnt confessions, that false affidavits arent proof of perjury; and all your other incongruous banter; when my staying with you on point.. was resulting in your being boxed into a corner. ..as to my validity.

    Still, I give time of day. Being a gracious progressive to a person who makes my.blood boil.

    But now… for today… I,m fone with.you.

    Chuck just warmed my heart n soul, reminding us that there are nobles in the world, who did the ultimate sacrifice.. KNOWINGLY..

    So that you and I could maintain our freedoms to speak and fight injustice.

    I know that,s my desire;
    and far from convinced it is yours.

    Have a good day..

  521. NBC says:

    Laser: You know you tucked tail on the Holder thread. When, given your expertise in perjury issues, you argued admittances arrnt confessions, that false affidavits arent proof of perjury; and all your other incongruous banter; when my staying with you on point.. was resulting in your being boxed into a corner. ..as to my validity.

    False affidavits are not proof of perjury, as perjury requires willfulness. Even the case you cited showed you to be wrong. Do you really still hold to the belief that perjury involves the mere act of filing a false statement under oath, or do you comprehend now that perjury requires a willful component.

    Oh my… If you work from that presumption, you may find your efforts to be undermined. I provided you with several citations to support my position. I had hoped you would have understood the reasonableness of my suggestions. Now you pretend that I was ‘boxed into a corner’ or that I ran. Wow.

  522. Your legal citations arent worth a grain of salt. As your agenda is obvious, your legal.prowess is wanton beyond compare.

    And it is a fact, upon the Holder thread, that you said you quit.

    The wow is, rven I thought you,d last several.days.

    But fret not… Romney’s coming in 2016.. and you can have at it then.

  523. NBC says:

    Laser: Your legal citations arent worth a grain of salt.

    Yes, that’s the attitude my friend. And trust me, I do understand, I am just trying to help you understand that your position is undermining your chances in court.

    What if Romney does not run? What then? Revenge is such a destructive force and mostly to the one experiencing said feelings.

    Still, an interesting gambit that could work even better if these jurisdictional flaws were addressed.

  524. NBC says:

    So explain to me how you reconcile the fact that perjury requires willful with your position that it only requires the act itself?

    The statutes, not the case law is very forgiving to such a position. But it may overcome a jurisdictional challenge before a court may grant dismissal for failure to state a claim. So it would get you one step further, assuming that you can overcome standing, and res judicata and Barton.

    Good luck Laser.

  525. The scienter/ mens rea you are referring to… is documented clear and convincing (assuming a legal eaglee such as yourself understands the 3 standards of proof)

  526. NBC says:

    Laser: The scienter/ mens rea you are referring to… is documented clear and convincing (assuming a legal eaglee such as yourself understands the 3 standards of proof)

    Not exactly what I was referring to but close enough

    There are several elements that need to be in place for perjury to happen

    1. Witness has to be under oath. Check
    2. Witness has to make a false statement. Check
    3. The witness made the false statement knowingly

    The third element of a perjury offense is proof of specific intent, that is, that the defendant made the false statement with knowledge of its falsity, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory.

    I surely hope you did include the evidence that establish this, because the ‘confession’ of 1 and 2 does not imply 3 No Check

    4. The statement must be material. Check

    3 out of 4, close but no cigar yet.

  527. Slartibartfast says:

    Again, sorry to take so long to get back to you NBC…

    NBC said:

    Slarti: If it is not the grand jury’s job to weigh the evidence, then it logically follows that they do not need to weigh the evidence to do their job, right?

    It does not require them to weigh the evidence, but the Grand Jury is far less constrained by procedures in determining probable cause. Therefor, it will be hard to argue that the Grand Jury’s decision is unjust. If they believe that there was no probable cause to conclude that no self defense could be argued, their decision still seems fair to me.

    However, in the context of the typical grand jury process and what happened in Ferguson, the appearance of fairness in the eyes of those missing the forest for the trees seems to be the extent of the equity here.

    See, the problem with the Grand Jury seems to be that the courts presume that their findings are correct.

    How is this a problem? Probable cause isn’t a conviction. The grand jury isn’t concerned with protecting the rights of the innocent, it is for protecting the rights of the victims (which is in the interest of society). Mr. Wilson would not have been in any way harmed by a finding of probable cause—in fact, were he innocent, such a finding would be to his benefit as it would allow him to prove his innocence in open court. On the other hand, the failure to find probable cause, given the possibility that a crime was committed, is an affront to the concept of justice and stains the honor of every single one of Bob’s “dogs”.

    And it is truly an uphill battle to show otherwise. Of course that is in case of probable cause findings. A lack of probable cause finding cannot be argued in court any further.

    Really? Did your extensive legal training tell you that? I don’t know what the federal government has the power to do here, but several possibilities suggest themselves (such as taking McCullough to court for violating Mr. Brown’s equal protection rights or ethical violations). In any case, jeopardy didn’t attach to the proceedings, so it is possible for some sort of indictment to be filed against Mr. Wilson in the future. I approve of any means within the Constitution to do so.

    I am still struggling with how to interpret probable cause correctly. Case law is just incredibly limited as few grand jury decisions are ever argued in courts and their proceedings are secret.

    I think this goes to the difference between evidence being “consistent” with a theory and evidence “supporting” a theory. If there is a theory which is consistent with the evidence and in which a crime has occurred (generally the crime specified by the prosecutor—except in this case where he declined to do so), then, it seems to me, there exists probable cause (i.e. the possibility that a crime occurred). To do otherwise would allow the guilty to go unpunished, which would be the opposite of justice. The case of conflicting evidence is where I believe the standard of “a cautious person” that Mike D found would come into play. In other words, would a reasonably cautious person believe that the evidence consistent with a theory could be true and the evidence which contradicts it could be false? I don’t see the grand jury having any mandate to weigh the validity of evidence beyond what is necessary to answer this question, and they certainly should not be acting as a trier of fact.

    Have you ever considered that the reason that there isn’t case law on this subject is because it involves an abuse of the process that allows for the protection of, for instance, killer cops?

    It sounds to me more like a Grand Jury investigation than a Grand Jury indictment, if that makes sense. Since no indictment was presented by the prosecutor, the grand jury’s task became more than it typically entails.

    Which was the method by which the DA ensured that the grand jury would not produce its typical result.

    Staten Island Grand jury similarly convened for months before not indicting officer. Are these investigations different? Mike?

    I would guess that, in both cases, the prosecutors got exactly the result that they were looking for. Because that’s what happens when they put their fingers on the scales of justice.

    Anonymous said:

    Bob Stone says:
    December 7, 2014 at 11:09 am

    What’s your take on Slarti’s “interpreting” the evidence without even having looked at it?

    I can’t really understand why this person isn’t the least bit curious enough to at least browse the GJ transcripts.

    Because I’m not interested in the particulars of this case, I’m just interested in whether or not the process has integrity—something that myself and others have concluded that it most certainly does not. McCullough did the equivalent of covering up an incriminating receipt with several boxcars worth of records. I already know what he’s trying to hide, so why should I study the attempts to obfuscate it?

    Especially after reading this comment:

    There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Brown turned around BEFORE his killer started firing.

    Surely anyone who has read even the smallest number of pages of the transcripts would recognize multiple eyewitnesses qualify Wilson’s own testimony that Michael Brown did in fact turn and face Wilson.

    I guess reading comprehension is not your strong suit. The order of events here is critical. If Mr. Brown did not turn around until AFTER ex-officer Wilson opened fire, then Mr. Wilson has some splainin’ to do. Namely, why he chose to open fire on the back of a wounded, shoeless fleeing teenager. Was this the action of a mewling quim or a cowboy cop? I don’t know. What I do know it that it wasn’t the act of a competent and honorable law enforcement professional, which is an issue that I have a serious problem with.

    I’m also flabbergasted that so many people object to the grand jurors’ access to evidence, investigating all and as much evidence as possible.

    No one has argued that the grand jurors’ access to evidence should be impeded, but swamping them with irrelevant and prejudicial evidence (such as the THC testimony) is clearly a demonstration of bias by the prosecutor.

    I am unfamiliar with our judicial system processes, however, one thing I have learned from reading about this case is petit jury courtrooms have strict protocols over admissible evidence.

    Grand juries serve as investigative bodies, and not bodies that determine guilt or innocence, so it makes sense that as much evidence (from multiple federal, state, county and municipal investigators) is optimal.

    All they need is enough evidence to determine if a cautious person could believe that a crime had occurred. Since they are usually provided with only the evidence the prosecutor feels is necessary to make his case, the typical grand jury is functioning in an extremely different context than the one in Ferguson did.

    I’ve also come to learn that defendants whom are subpoenaed to testify before grand juries are not protected by the 5th Amendment.

    Which is why it is apparent that Mr. Wilson never would have agreed to testify had there been any possibility that the questioners weren’t going to act as his defense.

    NBC said:

    Laser: There are infinite number of plausible scenarios, fitting the purported testimonies.

    That is not a very supportable statement. In fact, the physical evidence, combined with the testimony only leaves a few plausible scenarios where other testimonies can be reconciled by realizing that different people came to the incident at different times. If you came to the incident just before the second volley, you may very well have concluded that he was on his knees, or shot at close range.

    Exactly what are the “plausible scenarios” to justify the 3rd shot in your mind?

    NBC said:

    I am still troubled/confused about the role of the jury in establishing probable cause that Wilson did not have an absolute defense of self defense and how a jury would go about doing this. The self defense standard itself is quite low as it requires objectively reasonable and the immediate threat of a crime that would allow for self defense.

    Why in the world would the grand jury need to establish anything about Wilson’s defense to determine if their was probable case that a crime was committed?

    NBC,

    What are your feelings on the fact that Bob, among all of the people engaged in this debate, is the only one that has refused to admit that he is biased even though his bias has been obvious from the first piece he wrote on this subject?

    Also, what do you believe would be sufficient justification for opening fire on a wounded, barefoot, fleeing teenager? Absent justification, wouldn’t any action that Mr. Brown took thereafter be self-defense?

    Finally, what do you think would be required to satisfy Mr. Brown’s right to equal protection under the law? Or does a police officer’s privilege outweigh the rights of an African-American teen.

    Bob,

    Both here and on the other thread you seem to be full of excuses as to why you will never give a substantive response to the arguments of Mike and myself. Whatever the reason you can’t be bothered to engage in substantive debate, it is obvious that you are as unable to rebut anyone’s comments as you are to admit how your own bias shapes (or should I say “warps”) your positions.

    Here’s another question for you to dodge: What was Mr. Wilson’s justification for taking that 3rd shot at the back of an unarmed, wounded, barefoot, fleeing teenager? If he was a mewling quim afraid for his life, why was he chasing the demon who made him feel like he was 5 years old and if he was a cowboy cop, why couldn’t he take down this overweight kid that he could easily outrun in broad daylight in a non-lethal manner?

    The one thing that is absolutely clear (unless you can come up with a theory that explains all of the evidence) is that ex-officer Wilson did not behave as a competent law enforcement professional.

    • Bob Stone says:

      Slarti: “Did your extensive legal training tell you that? I don’t know what the federal government has the power to do here, but several possibilities suggest themselves (such as taking McCullough to court for violating Mr. Brown’s equal protection rights or ethical violations”

      Violating Brown’s equal protection rights? In what parallel universe is that even possible?

      Ethical violation? Like not committing prosecutorial misconduct by putting a man on trial when there’s absolutely no chance of getting a conviction?

      Jesus H. Christ chief…

  528. NBC says:

    Slarti: How is this a problem? Probable cause isn’t a conviction. The grand jury isn’t concerned with protecting the rights of the innocent, it is for protecting the rights of the victims (which is in the interest of society).

    The GJ was never about the rights of the victim. Wow.. The GJ stands between the accused and the government. How did you get this that wrong, unless this is your personal position but that runs against most of the history of the GJ.

    Slarti:Here’s another question for you to dodge: What was Mr. Wilson’s justification for taking that 3rd shot at the back of an unarmed, wounded, barefoot, fleeing teenager?

    There is no evidence of such a shot. What is there to dodge? Wow you really need to work on your facts.

  529. NBC says:

    Slarti: Finally, what do you think would be required to satisfy Mr. Brown’s right to equal protection under the law? Or does a police officer’s privilege outweigh the rights of an African-American teen.

    There is that race baiting again. How sad. You really do not understand that the GJ is NOT about Mr Brown. I have no idea what makes you write this outrageous and quite erroneous posting.

    Cheap, very cheap my friend. The due proces and equal rights are when the prosecutor presents his petit jury case, until then the prosecutor’s role is first most to the Grand Jury.

    Wow…

  530. NBC says:

    Slarti: Which is why it is apparent that Mr. Wilson never would have agreed to testify had there been any possibility that the questioners weren’t going to act as his defense.

    Pure speculation and based on nothing in evidence other than your wild imagination so far. What’s next? That the GJ is to protect the rights of the victim?

  531. Mike Dunford says:

    I’m going to respond to a few different things that NBC said in different posts here; I may do the same thing with some of Bob’s material later, time permitting. (I’m into a final exam period right now, and my procrastination allowance is mostly depleted.)

    NBC:

    Self defense is an absolute defense and would be a conclusion of law, as determined by a judge based on the facts. When the Judge rejects the absolute defense, then a case may proceed.

    That is largely incorrect. “Where there is conflicting evidence or when different inferences can reasonably be drawn from the evidence, whether the defendant acted in self-defense is a question for the trier of fact.” State v. Henderson, 311 S.W.3d 411, 414 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (citation omitted). The trier of fact is the petit jury, not the judge or grand jury. The phrase “absolute defense” does not mean that a self-defense claim will act to bar prosecution; the phrase merely indicates that if the defendant acted in self-defense, the defendant’s actions are excused from all criminal liability.

    The standard to move a case forward to trial when the defendant is asserting self-defense is, as I have said, reasonable cause to believe that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Self-defense is very rarely an issue that can be definitively resolved before trial.

    NBC, later post:

    Perhaps, or perhaps because it is one testimony weighed against the other. Should they have been asked?

    Yes, the questions should have been asked. The attorney preparing to examine Wilson should have spent time (realistically, several hours) examining all Wilson’s statements and looking for inconsistencies. Those areas should have been identified and explored – particularly if the prosecutor was (as you and Bob claim) making a real effort to present all the evidence to the grand jury.

    NBC, different post:
    I will check rules of criminal procedure as well. Then it’s time to look at legal precedent.

    Based on some of your recent posts, I’d suggest that you use caution when attempting to draw conclusions from caselaw. It’s not as simple a process as you might think, particularly if you don’t have access to a dedicated legal database service such as Lexis or Westlaw.

    NBC, in a still different post:

    The refusal to provide DNA is interesting. Can you see why Dorian would refuse such a request? And yes, I understand the ‘unreasonable search’ protection.

    Under the circumstances, I don’t think the refusal is at all significant. I think any competent attorney would have advised Johnson to decline to provide DNA. There’s no tangible upside for Johnson, and if the police can go to the judge and get a warrant if they want the sample badly enough.

  532. NBC says:

    Slarti: No one has argued that the grand jurors’ access to evidence should be impeded, but swamping them with irrelevant and prejudicial evidence (such as the THC testimony) is clearly a demonstration of bias by the prosecutor.

    Based on what? Much prejudicial evidence was presented to either side. The THC testimony has no relevance at all to the issue. I amazed as to how little you seem to trust the Grand Jury to do its investigations. And can you tell me how you know who asked the testimony to be given? The grand jurors appear to be quite eager for knowledge and information and have some very probing questions.

    You’re a bit late to the party so perhaps you may want to read my response to Mike as to why the testimony may not have been that prejudicial as it concluded that the amount of THC in the blood could not predict much of anything. Imagine how the rights of Brown would have been violated if the ADA’s had left the perception that the finding of marijuana somehow showed that Brown was high on drugs.

  533. NBC says:

    Miek: “Where there is conflicting evidence or when different inferences can reasonably be drawn from the evidence, whether the defendant acted in self-defense is a question for the trier of fact.”

    Fair enough. I confused trier of fact and trier of law. I appreciate the correction as I have been trying to figure out who/what decides the issue and I was misled to believe it was up to the judge. Makes sense actually as this is not just addressed by law.

  534. NBC says:

    As to Westlaw, I would love to have proper access but it’s prohibitively expensive and I am spending already too much on pacer even using recap.

  535. “I am spending already too much on pacer even using recap.”

    For all the good it does you.

    Otto West: Apes don’t read philosophy.

    Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it.

  536. NBC says:

    Oh my Gene, flattery is not going to get you anywhere. And you left out the best part

    Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not “Every man for himself.” And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

    There is a lesson for all of us…

  537. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D.: “I may do the same thing with some of Bob’s material later, time permitting. (I’m into a final exam period right now, and my procrastination allowance is mostly depleted.) ”

    Mike,

    Considering the amount of thought you put into your posts, shouldn’t you be spending your time memorizing your outlines?

    Here’s an out of print book that you MUST read. It’s called “Take The Bar and Beat Me” by Raymond Woodcock. I haven’t read it in fifteen years, but it was an incredibly funny and honest take on law school, the bar, etc.

    http://www.amazon.com/Take-Bar-Beat-Irreverent-Paralegals/dp/1564140008

    Woodcock has an incredibly long footnote discussing how too much caffeine causes loss of focus. I actually wrote him a letter (first and last time I ever wrote a letter to an author) telling him that the antidote for too much caffeine causing loss of focus is aspirin. He even wrote me back thanking me for the tip. I always took two Excederin (caffeine and aspirin) 10 minutes before any exam. That and a high protein meal prior to the exam.

    Okay then, not sure why I went off on that tangent.

    Good luck on exams.

    • Mike Spindell says:

      Mike .,

      Good luck on your exams. Study hard, stop procrastinating and we’ll be here when they’re over. 🙂

  538. Mike Dunford says:

    Outlines? Oh. Right. I should probably get those started sometime soon.

    But seriously – thanks, Bob. Fortunately, I’m a 3L with only two written exams this semester. The real killer this go-round is the written brief and oral argument that’s the final project for an international arbitration seminar.

  539. Mike D.,

    Not a bad load, but nonetheless, good luck.

  540. Bob Stone says:

    Slarti: Which is why it is apparent that Mr. Wilson never would have agreed to testify had there been any possibility that the questioners weren’t going to act as his defense.

    NBC: Pure speculation and based on nothing in evidence other than your wild imagination so far. What’s next? That the GJ is to protect the rights of the victim?

    NBC,

    You see what I mean? Why would any rational person accept an invitation down into his rabbit hole for an aimless inquiry based on his willing ignorance of the facts? Me, I don’t have the time or the desire to play Anne Bancroft in “The Miracle Worker.”

    Protecting the Equal protection rights of Brown???? And bringing ethics charges against McCulloch for not committing prosecutorial misconduct by putting a man on trial when there’s absolutely no chance of getting a conviction??

    I mean what do you say to that?

  541. Bob Stone says:

    Mike D.

    Sounds like you’ll do fine. And again, I highly recommend that book.

  542. Mike Dunford says:

    Slarti –
    Gotta concur in part with Bob on this one. The federal government’s power in this case is essentially limited to prosecuting Wilson (if they decide the evidence supports it) on criminal civil rights charges. I have a difficult time seeing them filing charges against Wilson, since they’d realistically have to show that Wilson’s actions were consciously motivated by race. (I don’t plan to research this, but I think there would be _substantial_ due process issues if any attempt was made to criminalize unconscious bias.

    Brown’s own civil rights ended (for the most part) at his death. I’m pretty sure there’s no civil right to have your killer prosecuted, even if the facts clearly support prosecution, so I can’t see any cause of action arising from a failure to prosecute. Similarly, professional ethics issues would be the province of the Missouri courts and bar, not the federal government.

  543. Bob Stone says:

    NBC,

    I just saw your other posts in reply to Slarti. Thanks again for the reality check.

  544. Slartibartfast says:

    Mike,

    And here’s where I prove my superiority to Bob—I can actually admit it when I’m wrong. I still think that justice demands that it be determined whether or not Mr. Brown’s killing was justified (by a system with integrity) and, in light of the obvious bias in the process in this case, the protesters are entirely justified (and should have their concerns addressed). In addition, I don’t believe that there is a reasonable justification for Mr. Wilson to have resumed fire unless Mr. Brown turned to face him and started moving towards him before he opened fire. I would ask you in what sense Mr. Brown can be said to have a right to equal protection under the law if there are no consequences for depriving him of his life (possibly unlawfully), but I understand running out of procrastination time all too well. Good luck on your finals.

    NBC,

    I’ll stop using loaded terms as soon as Bob admits that his (incessant) use of the term “honey badger” is also loaded.

    Bob,

    So long as you refuse to admit your own bias (which was obvious from the first words you wrote on this topic) and acknowledge the arguments of others rather than your own straw man versions your entire participation in this debate is little more than hypocritical nonsense.

    Did you ever wonder if I made more and more outrageous claims to demonstrate that you would address my arguments head on if you could? Something to think about…

  545. Bob is an attorney at law, who instictively circle the wagons around anyone in the system…not “caught” on video.

    If he were commenting on WASP Might makes Right Blog (pun intentional). Everyone woukd be buying him beers, denfing him bottles of Red Label (cause blue IS offensive); and groupies would want to have his children.

    That being said. He n his crony NBC, are perfect for here. Bob believes his position…HARD line.

    It.makes for good web views; and the discussion has affirmed some points.

    1.. Wilson either mitigated or instigated

    2.. He either lied or he hasn,t

    3.. McCullough was pure; or Not!

    These, remain the paramounts.

    Well established as the quandries!

  546. Hey people!

    Not to appear to be on Bob,s side; but has it ever occurred to anyone that – if he didn,t com out on the side he’s outspoken of – that he couldn’t spesk out at all?

    If you think it’s hard bantering on a position, on this blog; consider what Bob.woukd gi thru, in his local, legal community

    If hus position was apposite!

    I’m just sayin….

  547. Anonymous says:

    I’ve decided to reread some of the grand jury transcripts.

    This gleaned from the grand jury transcripts is quite disconcerting.

    (Grand Jury session hearing, September 3, 2014 of a St. Louis County crime scene detective, page 50-52, volume 2):

    Q: So after you did your walk-through, what’s the next thing you did?
    A: Um, typically at that point we would go back, my van was parked on the west side of the crime scene just west of where Darren Wilson’s vehicle was at. We would go back there, I would prepare my video camera, you know, get a new memory card, write some notes down and at that point typically start my video walk-through of the scene.
    Q: Is that what you did in this case?
    A: No, ma’am.
    Q: Why not?
    A: As far as the exact times, I couldn’t tell you, but during this time we were heading back to my car, another round of gunshots were fired and extremely close proximity to the crime scene. There was obviously a large crowd of people reacting to that as well as a police reaction to it. And the decision was made almost immediately to kind of hold, make sure the crime scene was secured. I have to be able to concentrate on what I’m looking at and trying to collect versus trying to watch the crowd behind me that’s growing ever bigger and angrier by the minute.
    Q: And so there was a break in your investigation until you were comfortable that the crime scene was secured; is that right?
    A: Yes, ma’am.
    Q: Is anyone else processing the crime scene or doing anything else or touching the crime scene?
    A: No ma’am

    If I hear Michael Brown’s mother complain again about how it took investigators 4 hours to process the crime scene and remove her son’s body from the scene, I’m going to scream.

    As it turned out, someone in her neighborhood took it upon themselves to fire gunshots in the immediate proximity to Michael Brown’s corpse, and law enforcement personnel had to stop what they were doing in order to secure the perimeter of the crime scene; ultimately to keep an angry (and not too bright) mob of people from disturbing evidence.

    How classy.

    Charlie Rose should be ashamed for even entertaining the thought, let alone actually interviewing Michael Brown’s family.

  548. Last time I checked, control of the media was in the hands of the outlet.

    You can change the dial, turn off….

    As for the others shots;
    Strange stuff.. if true

  549. Anonymous says:

    if true

    I don’t see why a crime scene detective would perjure oneself before a grand jury.

    There were gunshots fired, as the crime scene was being investigated.
    Investigators had to stop what they were doing and secure the perimeter.
    Strange indeed.

    (page 52 from the transcripts)

    Q: Have you ever had a scene like this before?
    A: Never.

  550. Nobody accused of perjury.. Backfires, slams of metal n woods; and ..maybe. .. actual gun fire.

    Shots flying around, immediately after, should have resulted in much more discussion… and response by authority.. than just now, my first time hearing of this.

    Are there other affirms of the item?

  551. Still, be that as it may, doesn’t justify your desire and disparage to have Charlie Rose shut down.

    Many of U.S. would be tuned into seeing such a veteran interviewer fo his magic.

    Step father should be indicted;
    we may never get to hear him speak.. then!

  552. Anonymous says:

    laserDliquidator:

    Perhaps you should read the transcripts. Gunshots were fired after crime scene investigators were on the scene, approximately an hour after the incident.

    Charlie Rose interviewed Michael Brown’s parents. There’s been no discussion of shutting down The Charlie Rose show. I used to respect his tact and style format as a talk show host.

    Michael Brown Sr. and Lesley McSpadden both appeared on CBS This Morning (with Charlie Rose, Nora O”Donnel and Gail King, AND the Charlie Rose show the week the grand jury made its announcement, for pure emotional knee jerk reaction entertainment purposes.

    I can call the media out on objectionable broadcasting policies if I want to. I don’t have to watch it either.

    Ms. McSpadden complained that it took 4 hours (which by reading the grand jury transcripts, is standard procedures) to remove Michael Brown’s body…someone fired gunshots in close proximity to the crime scene (somehow that minor detail was never mentioned by our hallowed media “experts”).

    It’s shameful that we as a society amuse ourselves this way, spoon fed by media types like Rose, at the expense of someone’s excruciating grief and bereavement. And, we call ourselves a civilized society.

    • Bob Stone says:

      Anonymous,

      I saw that CBS Morning interview as well and had the same reaction. It felt like it was a producer’s call and Rose was along for the ride. CNN disposed of the myth about the body being left in the street. I forget which analyst or anchor did it. Maybe Tom Fuentes.

  553. Anonymous says:

    State of Missouri vs Darren Wilson Hearing before the Grand Jury September 3, 2014 Volume 2 – pages 74-

    Q: (By Ms. Alizadeh) Image Number 4.
    A: Again, this would be, the left side of the picture would be the tail end of Darren Wilson’s car, again, looking farther east.
    Q: Okay. Now, I think if you can see, this is crime tape; is that right?
    A: Yes, ma’am.
    Q: Police tape, and does it appear that there is police tape back there as well?
    A: Yes, initially, when we arrived, this first piece of crime scene tape was the barrier to the crime scene. After several people had torn down the crime scene tape, run onto the scene, gunshots being fired, the crowd would run from this building in particular from this side of the crime scene, around this building, through the parking lot to this side of the crime scene, depending on what was happening. We had an opening where the crowd had run to the eastern end of the crime scene. So several people moved or put up a new set of crime scene tape farther back into the parking lot to try to keep people farther away from the crime scene.
    Q: Okay. So that was done not because you determined that somehow this area was now part of a crime scene, it was done to keep the crowd from encroaching upon the crime scene?
    A: Yes, ma’am.

  554. Anonymous says:

    Bob Stone says:
    December 10, 2014 at 10:37 pm

    I saw the CBS interview with Rose, O’Donnell and King; which prompted me to examine the GJ documents as soon as they were released.

    I generally do not watch other cable news, as the news headlines just keep repeating. Over and over and over…how many times does one need to hear the same news item…in one day. So I did not see CNN’s coverage.

    When I read in the GJ transcripts that a mob of people encroached the crime scene and that someone was firing gunshots, I became ever more disappointed with our “free press” and the ghoulish coverage of issues here in the land of snap decisions and short attention spans. I feel that Ms. Michael Brown’s family have been preyed upon for news media ratings.

    I used to admire Charlie Rose’s interviewing style. No more.

    I do believe racism and bigotry remain to be deep problems in this country (racial profiling must be addressed) however, in the case of Michael Brown he assaulted a police officer and then tried to take Wilson’s service weapon.

    • Bob Stone says:

      Anonymous: “I do believe racism and bigotry remain to be deep problems in this country (racial profiling must be addressed)”

      Anonymous,

      I agree. And let’s not forget voter ID laws and the other tool of black disenfranchisement, the war on drugs and the creation of the prison industrial complex.

      But propagating and perpetuating a false narrative, i.e. “hands up,” to generate outrage against a potential defendant, regardless of facts and evidence, in furtherance of correcting the above problems, is as I said an abomination.

      Anonymous: “however, in the case of Michael Brown he assaulted a police officer and then tried to take Wilson’s service weapon.”

      Don’t you know that such talk is merely an “effort to besmirch Michael Brown’s reputation”?

      to wit:

      https://flowersforsocrates.com/2014/12/08/echo-chamber-reuters-investigation-finds-that-a-small-group-of-lawyers-dominates-the-docket-at-the-supreme-court/#comment-25765

  555. Anonymous says:

    typo: Michael Brown’s family.

  556. Ah,,.. new pals;
    But same old yadda yadda.

    Totally obtuse to tge fact that officer Wilson instigated …completely contrary to the protocol of mitigating

    Or was it Mike Brown,s demonic powers that made Officer Wilson

    Back up his SUV and confront a giant?