Summations Only

How about the witness who probably lied about being at the scene of the shooting? Is that evidence that you should consider?"Witness 40": Exposing A Fraud In Ferguson | The Smoking Gun "The grand jury witness who testified that she saw Michael Brown pummel a cop before charging at him like a football player, head down, is a troubled, bipolar Missouri woman with a criminal past who has a history of making racist remarks and once insinuated herself into another high-profile St. Louis criminal case with claims that police eventually dismissed as a complete fabrication, The Smoking Gun has learned.

​

Sandra McElroy did not provide police with a contemporaneous account of the Brown-Wilson confrontation, which she claimed to have watched unfold in front of her as she stood on a nearby sidewalk smoking a cigarette.

​

Instead, McElroy waited four weeks after the shooting to contact cops. By the time she gave St. Louis police a statement on September 11, a general outline of Wilson’s version of the shooting had already appeared in the press. McElroy’s account of the confrontation dovetailed with Wilson’s reported recollection of the incident."So does that change your opinion Faith? She wasn't interviewed at the scene, we don't even know that she was there at the time (probably wasn't), and she has a history of lying. Credible, do you think?

So, shouldn't that be a question handled in a trial? See, that's what people are asking for, a regular jury trial.

Maybe because this testimony was presented to a prosecutor's Grand Jury, and the prosecutor has a vested interest in keeping the police happy.Maybe because a Grand Jury is inherently secret, so this woman had to be investigated by outside sources since all we knew at the time she was 'witness 40'.Maybe because the prosecutor had no reason to bring up this woman's questionable history, & every reason to hide it.

Oh my, this is rich, really.Faith, you are an original conspiracy thinker!

I don't believe it's practical to recall a GJ once they have rendered a decision. I'm not a lawyer; does anyone have any cases like this?I do believe there are other government agencies investigating. Would you support more inquiry, possibly DOJ involvment, here Faith?

Holder reminded the public that despite the Grand Jury decision, a separate Department of Justice investigation is ongoing. Holder: Despite Grand Jury Decision Not Indict, DOJ Investigation Into Ferguson Case Still OngoingSo you would support an ongoing investigation by the DOJ?

Nope, hers was the only story that 'dovetailed' with Wilson's account. With her dubious character & a prosecutor unwilling to highlight any discrepencies with her statements, it was left to the GJ to suss out any problems with her testimony.The other witness' statements you reference are 'consistent with Wilson's testimony', according to sources. I'll bet those sources are linked to the prosecutor's office. That only tells us one side - again, more reason to have a trial where witnesses are identified & cross examined. It's so easy for this prosecutor to lead the witnesses - we all know about the 'ham sandwich' joke.