Saint Louis County Judge Will Hear Argument From Grand Jury Critic – Mike Brown Shooting Case

The issues within the Post Dispatch article below highlight the problems created by media publicity within the legal system.

Media Lying

Similar to the Trayvon Martin shooting much, if not most, of the information transmitted to the public in the Mike Brown shooting was created by agenda driven media entities like MSNBC, CNN, all the alphabets, and 90%+ of the print media. Most of it completely false.  

The media, essentially broken down into various factions within an ideologically similar left-wing profession, looking for a cause, a Ryan Julison type cause, to push upon their readership and viewership – while inflating their own ego and liberal bona fides.

Rioting erupts in Ferguson, Missouri after police involved shooting of an unarmed teenOh yes, make no mistakes, the real enemy in all of these events is an intentionally deceitful media.

To offset the inherent bias stemming from the embedded, media-driven, false narrative, Prosecutor Robert McCulloch gave the grand jury every available scintilla of information to present the total realistic picture of what took place in Canfield Greens apartment complex. Simultaneously, outside the Grand Jury, the false stories fraught with agenda-interests were being promoted by the media 24/7.

There was, in essence, two realities. One inside the legal preceedings based on fact, the other outside in the rest of the world based on emotion and deception. It is no surprise to see how some cannot grasp the concept of being lied to so totally and completely.

Then again, liberalism is a cognitive disorder – only possible to manifest, if a person is willing to separate themselves from empirical reality, and common sense.

Robert McCulloch

CLAYTON A judge here agreed Friday to consider a law professor’s criticism of the conduct of the grand jury that investigated the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown— but he signaled skepticism of a request to have a special prosecutor re-examine the case.

Activists contend that St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch acted in bad faith during grand jury proceedings and “never intended to prosecute Darren Wilson,” the Ferguson officer who shot Brown Aug. 9.

At issue in a hearing Friday was whether Circuit Court Judge Joseph L. Walsh III would consider affidavits by critics of the grand jury investigation, which ended without indicting the officer.

Last month, Walsh gave attorneys for four activists time to obtain affidavits from other lawyers or prosecutors to support their claim.

Two were provided, although Walsh rejected one Friday as simply saying, “Me. Too. Ditto.” The other, by Bennett L. Gershman, a law professor and former prosecutor and defense attorney, was criticized by the county’s lawyer, Peter Krane, and Walsh.

Gershman complained about a “gross deviation from proper standards of conduct,” saying he never before saw prosecutors go to “extraordinary lengths to exonerate a potential defendant.”

Krane countered that Gershman reviewed only a small part of the transcripts and evidence, made erroneous claims about Wilson’s testimony and was simply “parroting” one of the plaintiffs.

Lawyer Maggie Ellinger-Locke disputed that, however.

The underlying lawsuit, seeking to have Walsh appoint a special prosecutor, was filed on behalf of Montague Simmons, of Velda City, executive director of the Organization for Black Struggle; Juliette Jacobs, of Jennings, an organizer with that group; Redditt Hudson, of Florissant, a former police officer and board chairman of the Ethics Project; and Tara Thompson, a community activist from Florissant.

Ellinger-Locke said the plaintiffs need only “some showing” that McCulloch failed to fulfill his duty.

As in a hearing a month ago, Walsh made statements that didn’t bode well for the plaintiffs.

After mention in court of a famous old criticism of the grand jury process that a determined prosecutor could get even a ham sandwich indicted, Walsh suggested that the complaint against McCulloch seems to be that “because he didn’t do that in this case, he violated his responsibilities.”  (read more)

How does this happen?

Remember this lady?  ..”They Shot That Boy For No Reason !”

The police approached a man on the street in Baltimore suspected of carrying a firearm. Before the police could reach him the man took off running. During the pursuit the suspects handgun either fell, or was dropped, as he fled. The suspects gun went off when it hit the ground. Fortunately no-one was hit by the discharge. The man was tackled by the chasing officers and then, out of an abundance of caution, transported via ambulance.

No police officer fired their weapons. No-one was shot. The only firearm discharge was from the fleeing suspect as his firearm hit the ground.

Now watch this video of how a female “eye-witness”, injected her perception of the event, and quickly reported it to the media and enraged the community.  Passionate, angry, tearful and adamant about what she witnessed.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Abusive Cops, Agitprop, BGI - Black Grievance Industry, Conspiracy ?, CRS, Cultural Marxism, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, media bias, Mike Brown Evidence, Mike Brown Shooting, Notorious Liars, Police action, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Racism, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Saint Louis County Judge Will Hear Argument From Grand Jury Critic – Mike Brown Shooting Case

  1. In the story told by the Monte Carlo’s driver and passenger, their path forward was blocked when Darren Wilson backed up his police vehicle and stopped askew the street.

    In fact, however, they could have driven around the police vehicle easily. Photographs of the investigation of the scene show that even an SUV — much wider than a Monte Carlo — could drive around Wilson’s vehicle.

    In addition to the adequate space, the curb was sloped at a low angle. The “curb” was rather like a gutter and did not present any obstacle for the Monte Carlo to drive around Wilson’s vehicle.

    The reason why the Monte Carlo stopped by Wilson’s vehicle was not because the path was blocked. Rather, the Monte Carlo’s driver and passenger wanted to listen to what was going on between Wilson and Brown after Johnson ran away — probably laughing as he ran away.

    Until Wilson shot his first gunshot, the whole incident still was just a prank in the African-Americans’ minds. Driving the Monte Carlo close to the police vehicle to listen to Wilson and Brown argue with each other while Brown held Wilson’s door shut was just another element in the prank.

    http://people-who-did-not-see.blogspot.com/

    Like

  2. Chip Bennett says:

    Let’s cut to the chase: what constitutional or statutory authority does a county judge have to compel anything at all to happen in this instance?

    The judicial branch being able to compel the executive branch to assign a special prosecutor to a case that does not exist – essentially, compelling the executive branch to bring charges against a would-be defendant – appears to me to be a gross violation of the separation of powers.

    If the executive branch, through the prosecuting attorney, fails to bring charges against someone, then the judicial branch is simply not involved. There is no standing for anyone, because there is no case under consideration.

    Liked by 12 people

    • BobNoxious says:

      I agree with that and I’m also still trying to figure out how these people have standing to bring any lawsuit in the first place?

      Liked by 4 people

    • TwoLaine says:

      I agree, so I must have a Chip on my shoulder. 🙂

      I’m sorry, but aren’t we missing the fact that even the corrupt DOJ, aka DOIJ, even ruled that there is not enough evidence, and they ran a totally separate investigation. So he is going over their head as well?

      Liked by 4 people

      • Concerned says:

        Excellent point! http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

        Based on this investigation, the Department has concluded that Darren Wilson’s actions do not constitute prosecutable violations under the applicable federal criminal civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242, which prohibits uses of deadly force that are “objectively unreasonable,” as defined by the United States Supreme Court. The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition. Accordingly, under the governing federal law and relevant standards set forth in the USAM, it is not appropriate to present this matter to a federal grand jury for indictment, and it should therefore be closed without prosecution.

        Yes, it was federal law instead of state law, but I think the required evidence was pretty much the same. And it just wasn’t there even though Holder tried so hard to find it.

        Liked by 3 people

    • dalethorn says:

      If it were Law you would be correct. But under the new Vengeance Precedents (didn’t know we had those?) they can do this “by any means necessary”. God help us if this is not rejected outright, or more helpfully, with a special slap upside their heads from the judge.

      Liked by 6 people

    • BigMamaTEA says:

      Thank you Chip.

      Like

  3. mickie says:

    What prosecutor or attorney would file an affidavit saying ”me too, ditto”? Give me a break!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. bertdilbert says:

    If the prosecutor has evidence in his possession that will totally exonerate the potential defendant at trial, it would never make it to the Grand Jury in the first place. The only reason it went to the Grand Jury is because of the “public pressure” heaped on by the media. I think the smarty pants law professor misses this point entirely.

    So it never went to the GJ for the sake of perusing a trial that would waste everyone’s time and taxpayer resources to hear a long drawn out trial. Could the prosecutor withhold evidence and present a case to make it pass the GJ? Maybe, but he would be doing a disservice to his office and to the public by wasting resources including a jury that has to sit through a trial.

    McCulloch did the right thing by giving the GJ all the evidence to sort through and make a decision, with the GJ being an independent 3rd party. Backing McColloch’s actions and the GJ decision was the DOJ exonerating Wilson by not bringing civil rights charges against him.

    Even if McColloch withheld and obfuscated evidence to pass the GJ and it went to trial and Wilson was found not guilty, the naysayers who already have their minds made up based on “media evidence” would have blamed the prosecution for not doing a good enough job. In their eyes Wilson would still be guilty and the system is corrupt.

    McCulloch did the right thing in a no win situation that should have never been seen by the GJ in the first place.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Armie says:

      What McCulloch did was pretty smart. The transcripts show that he appointed two people from his office to present the case, one as a prosecutor would, and one to counter examine the witnesses as a defense attorney might. Wilson got pretty thoroughly grilled. So did the “hands up” witnesses. The latter group showed a propensity to stop talking after the third or fourth time they’d been asked to explain a contradiction in their direct testimony. Nobody gave anybody a free ride, in fact it could be argued that McCulloch used the Grand Jury exactly the way they’re supposed to be used, as a fact finding body.

      Mostly what these dudes are upset about is that after all the efforts to intimidate witnesses, there were still some courageous folks who came forward and told the truth.

      Liked by 4 people

  5. JT says:

    I’m not sure how the Post-Dispatch article you’re talking about does anything other than report the facts of the hearing before the court. Where’s the media deception in this article?

    I don’t disagree that, in many cases, there is clear media bias based on agenda, but I’m not seeing it in this article.

    Like

  6. mickie says:

    2x4x8, I think you’re right!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. BobNoxious says:

    McCullough never should’ve released the Grand Jury transcripts- and nobody will ever make that mistake again. This is proof that these people will never be pleased until Wilson’s head is put on a platter.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Sentenza says:

    The message I got from that is that the Michael Brown supporters want prosecutors to behave unethically. It’s more ethical to disclose all of your evidence to a grand jury and allow them to make a decision than it is to present only enough evidence to manipulate them into doing what you want.

    These people cry, “The system is corrupt and racist.” The solution they present is for more corruption. One wonders if anyone had the brains to ask if the police officer committed a crime.

    Liked by 7 people

  9. Stamp says:

    Drudge is currently linking a Wapo article “under-reported cop killings twice FBI report” or something to that effect.

    I just find it odd, and interesting, the various politicians and people who engage in throwing gas on this obvious crisis.

    Moonbats on unicorns

    Liked by 1 person

    • BobNoxious says:

      I just read that article and found it interesting even though they’ve presented it in a slanted manner meant to fit their narrative. I wish they would provide the raw data to allow others to draw their own conclusions.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. dalethorn says:

    “She’ll want blood – yours will do.” — Roger Vadim’s character in “Into The Night”.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. jackphatz says:

    The police slowdown must be working too well, the BGI can’t get rioting to start in new territory so now they have to dredge up the old. Might be a cheap summer!

    Like

  12. froggielegs says:

    How can they claim McCulloch did anything wrong when he wasn’t the one who presented the evidence to the grand jury?

    Liked by 2 people

  13. amwick says:

    I hope this judge returns a decision with the word FRIVOLOUS in it somehow. Oh, and a bill for all the time/money wasted on this.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s