Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What don't you get about witness 40. She was not the key witness for Wilson. She was exposed as a liar and a sick person in her FBI interview. The GJ had that interview. Do you think the DA redacted the FBI questions to her, and only gave the GJ her answers supporting Wilson ?
What don't you get about witness 40. She was not the key witness for Wilson. She was exposed as a liar and a sick person in her FBI interview. The GJ had that interview. Do you think the DA redacted the FBI questions to her, and only gave the GJ her answers supporting Wilson ?
She was there....under oath......the GJ could have asked her anything.
Well thank god for Internet forums, amateur prosecutors without any access to all the evidence, the court of public opinion, and the lynch mob. How on earth can we get justice without them?
There is no credible witness for the claim that Brown did NOT have his hands up when he was fired upon.
Therefore there is no credible witness who backs up Wilson's story.
That is FACT.
The same can be said for credible witnesses backing up the claim that MB had his hands up. It's potentially a false narrative.
Part of the problem is the only facts that exist in the case are physical evidence. Everyone's version of events are tainted by their own twist, even if they don't realize it. DJ and Wilsons stories are actually very similar, only changing minor details like who was the aggressor.
The reason I tend to believe MB was the aggressor is because we know for a fact he'd just come from being aggressive during a felony robbery, where as nobody has accused Wilson of just committing a felony robbery. But I suppose there is always time.
There is no credible witness for the claim that Brown did NOT have his hands up when he was fired upon.
Therefore there is no credible witness who backs up Wilson's story.
That is FACT.
Then there must have been no credible witnesses at all. That means all we have is the officers version of events that are consistent with the physical evidence.
There you go... thats why they found that there was not enough evidence to go to trial.
"You must understand, then, that Sandy McElroy, whose testimony matches that of Darren Wilson's better than any witness who testified, was only called to the grand jury, not once, but twice, and allowed to present concocted physical evidence at that, because she was a neutron bomb for this case. Not ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE proving that she was there could be found and scores of evidence that she made the entire thing up was presented weeks before she was ever allowed to testify before the grand jury, but it was all deliberately ignored."
Before she testified, the GJ listened to her FBI interview, in which the FBI basically called her a mentally ill, racist, liar. The grand juror questions to her indicate they felt the same way. HOWEVER, ...
I agree that witness 40 would never have seen the inside of a courtroom in a trial or a standard GJ proceeding.
What don't you get about witness 40. She was not the key witness for Wilson. She was exposed as a liar and a sick person in her FBI interview. The GJ had that interview. Do you think the DA redacted the FBI questions to her, and only gave the GJ her answers supporting Wilson ?
the brownbots keep throwing her out there in desperation, over and over and over again.
4 times [at least] on this thread alone. as if her testimony actually made a difference or something
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.