MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #18

[Linda7NJ]

How many of you feel that officer Wilson will or has spoken to the Grand Jury? I think that it's probable that he will or has done so.

I understand why people would use their Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination when called before a Grand Jury. I just don't feel it's necessary in this case.

I agree.

However, I'm certain his attorney advised against it. There is zero benefit in it for him.

His interviews and statements will be submitted. That's more than enough.

IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lovejac]

And while you're at it, google *Brown family attorney Benjamin Crump admits his desperation*

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I don't know if this has already been linked before but it seems to be an extended version of what CNN has been constantly looping over and over again concerning the construction workers.

Look closely at the man on the far left at the very start of the video. 0:06 mark. He is motioning to the construction worker and seems to have his hands up in the air as if trying to say 'What happened?' And then the guy in the red shirt throws his hands up as if to say he doesn't know what happened.

So imo, CNN staged this video to appear one way and conveniently omitted the very first part that would explain why the construction workers hands are in the air.

Now I am beginning to trust none of these witnesses who seem to be seeking 15 minutes of fame.

And notice the demeanor of the construction workers. They really seem totally disinterested in what just happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnhB-_cIxKM

 

[Linda7NJ]

There was a DJ version of events that included his begging a passerby to take him away from the scene. I wonder if there's a kernel there. All MOO

I never bother to look for kernels in proven liars tales...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

JMO My understanding is that he was invited to tell his story to the GJ but is not compelled to testify, and that he has declined, per attorney advice, which is usually what happens at a GJ. So,his story would only be related to the GJ by whatever documents there are and whatever he told investigators in a signed statement. Maybe I'm wrong, but I do not think that he gave sworn testimony to the GJ. JMO

If he signed any statements he gave to police, that is considered sworn testimony. There would be no reason for him to attend in person.

JMO

 

[DebinGA]

http://www.courierpress.com/news/local-news/crime/epd-officer-involved-in-shooting_01090110

Officer involved shooting of young black man last night in IL, witnesses blamed policeman, but the PD released the video from the officer's body cam showing what really happened. Whatever it costs, police, at least in high crime areas, need body cams imo.

 

[Linda7NJ]

So, do y'all remember this guy, Martin Baker? http://www.ibtimes.com/who-martin-baker-darren-wilson-supporter-faces-twitter-backlash-1660822

goggle his name and Mauricelm-Lei Millere

OMG!

How scary! I hope he stays safe! That poor man..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sonjay]

How many of you feel that officer Wilson will or has spoken to the Grand Jury? I think that it's probable that he will or has done so.

I understand why people would use their Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination when called before a Grand Jury. I just don't feel it's necessary in this case.

Lets say that officer Wilson decides to not testify before the Grand Jury, they indict him and he goes to trial. Would it be a good idea that he testify at trial or remain silent?

In a regular criminal trial, I think the jury always hopes to hear directly from the defendant. To see and hear him say outright, "I didn't do it," so they can judge his demeanor and credibility. But the defendant of course always has the right to say nothing, and the prosecution has to prove their case regardless.

Where the case hinges on the affirmative defense of justified shooting in self-defense, the legal burden is still on the prosecution, but I think the jury really really wants to hear directly from the defendant, much more so than in an "I didn't do it" defense. OW is the only person who can truly tell the GJ or the jury, from his own personal knowledge, exactly what he saw and heard, and how he felt, and what danger he perceived. "I shot him" isn't the question. "Here's why I shot him" is the critical question, and OW is in a better position to tell the GJ, and a regular jury if it comes to that, why he shot him.

That's all my opinion only. Whether OW will testify is an unanswered question for us at this point. Whether his attorney will recommend he testify, I have no idea.

 

[Linda7NJ]

And while you're at it, google *Brown family attorney Benjamin Crump admits his desperation*

Gasp!
THUD!

So glad the non-MSM is all over this!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

http://www.courierpress.com/news/local-news/crime/epd-officer-involved-in-shooting_01090110

Officer involved shooting of young black man last night in IL, witnesses blamed policeman, but the PD released the video from the officer's body cam showing what really happened. Whatever it costs, police, at least in high crime areas, need body cams imo.

So so scary!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lovejac]

Gasp!
THUD!

So glad the non-MSM is all over this!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know, right? Did you catch his 'hypothetical" charges? What did you think about that?

Poking a bear with a stick is all Crumps letter did

 

[DebinGA]

So so scary!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't imagine being that police officer and knowingly leaving my car to face certain danger. And then be falsely accused by the miscreant "witnesses".

 

[Linda7NJ]

I know, right? Did you catch his 'hypothetical" charges? What did you think about that?

Poking a bear with a stick is all Crumps letter did

Me thinks they're not "hypothetical" AT ALL....




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bettybaby00]

I don't know if this has already been linked before but it seems to be an extended version of what CNN has been constantly looping over and over again concerning the construction workers.

Look closely at the man on the far left at the very start of the video. 0:06 mark. He is motioning to the construction worker and seems to have his hands up in the air as if trying to say 'What happened?' And then the guy in the red shirt throws his hands up as if to say he doesn't know what happened.

So imo, CNN staged this video to appear one way and conveniently omitted the very first part that would explain why the construction workers hands are in the air.

Now I am beginning to trust none of these witnesses who seem to be seeking 15 minutes of fame.

And notice the demeanor of the construction workers. They really seem totally disinterested in what just happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnhB-_cIxKM

I saw this as well on a blog, as always the comment section provides a wealth of info. CNN definitely messed with that video.

 

[reedus23]

How many of you feel that officer Wilson will or has spoken to the Grand Jury? I think that it's probable that he will or has done so.

I understand why people would use their Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination when called before a Grand Jury. I just don't feel it's necessary in this case.

I think it depends on what other witnesses there are and what they are saying. If there are others that back his story, then he may likely opt not to. If the only witnesses are the ones we've heard about, he almost has to testify if he wants to avoid an indictment because all of them give some variation of hands up and not being a threat.

2 questions it brings to mind for me though.

1. Do you think the prosecuting attorney is sharing with OW or his attorney what other witnesses are saying and what other evidence there is? In other words, does the requirement to share information/evidence being before an indictment?

2. GJ testimony is usually sealed but when a defendant testifies before a GJ, can those statements be used against him at a trial?

 

[DebinGA]

Crump basked all week in the glow from AP/CNN's incomplete report of the "new" landscaper witness who agreed that MB's hands were up when he was shot. The reason for Crump's fiery letter to the St. Louis Post Dispatch was because, after the AP report, one of the paper's reporters interviewed the "his hands were up" landscaper, who added the new-but-unreported-elsewhere info that, though MB's arms/hands were up, he was coming toward OW the whole time, with OW backing up and firing in response.

 

[SStarr33]

I don't know if this has already been linked before but it seems to be an extended version of what CNN has been constantly looping over and over again concerning the construction workers.

Look closely at the man on the far left at the very start of the video. 0:06 mark. He is motioning to the construction worker and seems to have his hands up in the air as if trying to say 'What happened?' And then the guy in the red shirt throws his hands up as if to say he doesn't know what happened.

So imo, CNN staged this video to appear one way and conveniently omitted the very first part that would explain why the construction workers hands are in the air.

Now I am beginning to trust none of these witnesses who seem to be seeking 15 minutes of fame.

And notice the demeanor of the construction workers. They really seem totally disinterested in what just happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnhB-_cIxKM

As Mark O'Mara would say, "something is afoot".

 

[reedus23]

The problem I see with OW speaking to the grand jury is their ability to ask him questions like "Have you ever used the "n" word?", i.e. anything they want, case-related or not, which Crump Inc. could use against him. I read that a civil rights charge from Holder's DOJ would only occur if OW had "racial animus" toward MB. Letting a grand jury probe his life history re any dealings with blacks since childhood, which Crump could then twist or amplify, would be a huge mistake imo.

But if he's not racist he has never used the "n" word so no worries. I really don't understand the concern about his dealings with blacks if he has nothing to hide.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

If he goes to trial and testifies, anything he testified to at a GJ hearing can be used against him on cross-examination, if there are discrepancies.

Discrepancies? Do you mean perjury? I don't see that happening.

 

[reedus23]

Lets say that officer Wilson decides to not testify before the Grand Jury, they indict him and he goes to trial. Would it be a good idea that he testify at trial or remain silent?

Would the risk of having to be examined by the prosecution be too great?

I think his testimony is more needed at the GJ phase than at trial. I think a defense counsel could make enough of a mess of the current testimony based on what I heard that reasonable doubt could be created without having to put him on the stand. The problem with a GJ is that the standard is lower and while the prosecuting attorney is going to present all of the evidence, I'd assume he's not going to attack credibility in the same fashion that a defense attorney would.