• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Did Ferguson Prosecutor McCulloch manipulate grand jury into falsifying testimony???

Which statement about McCulloch is closest to the truth?

  • He intentionally manipulated the grand jury into falsifying evidence

    Votes: 8 50.0%

  • He presented evidence in a biased manner.

    Votes: 1 6.3%

  • He presented evidence in an objective manner.

    Votes: 7 43.8%
  • Total voters
    16
since9

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Excerpts:

"A Missouri lawmaker is calling for an investigation of St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch, saying he "manipulated" the grand jury in the Ferguson case. McCulloch said in a radio interview on Friday that some witnesses obviously lied to the grand jury.

"State Rep. Karla May is pushing for a state investigation, saying she believes McCulloch helped sway the grand jury into the decision not to indict Ferguson officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was black and unarmed.

""Clearly some were not telling the truth," McCulloch said. He made reference to one woman who claimed to have seen the shooting. McCulloch said she "clearly wasn't present. She recounted a story right out of the newspaper" that backed up Wilson's version of events, he said."​
 
skidmark

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
""Clearly some were not telling the truth," McCulloch said. He made reference to one woman who claimed to have seen the shooting. McCulloch said she "clearly wasn't present. She recounted a story right out of the newspaper" that backed up Wilson's version of events, he said."
Click to expand...

Did McCulloch expose her testimony as untruthful? (Notice how I'm avoiding calling it pergured testimony?)

Would that be the same prosecutor who demonstrated that several "witnesses" against Wilson made stuff up or just repeated what they saw on TV while claiming to have been present and eyewitnesses?

And just because I am dumber that a box of hammers, how did McCulloch "manipulate" the grand jury into falsifying testimony? Yeah, I [strike]know[/strike] hope and pray you probably meant that McCulloch is accused of manipulating witnesses into falsifying testimony they gave to the grand jury.

stay safe.
 
J

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
If I remember the televised news release where the Grand Jury decision was released the Prosecutor made it quite clear he presented all the evidence available. Even going so far to say that several witnesses had changed their claims/statements during the course of the investigation some in an effort to mesh with other evidence released during the investigation.

And per my understanding since the Grand Jury proceedings are a venue in which to determine if criminal charges are warranted, he went far beyond what he was required to do to convince the grand jury to indict. Of course, I don't believe it was his intent to have the officer indicted and was using the grand jury process to seem to step back from prosecutorial discretion to press charges or not.

IMO, Riots were a given in this situation---- Either riots to complain about the lack of indictment or riots in celebration of the indictment!

As to the poll questions--- I do believe he manipulated the Grand Jury. He presented the case to get the decision he wanted. I don't see any criminality in this process though--- I do see some who are not happy with the resultant decision however.

And as a final edit---- I answered the poll in the affirmative to the last question..... He did present the case in an objective manner!

Even though it has me standing with Primus---- (see the 3rd line below in my signature!)
 
Last edited:
twoskinsonemanns

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Primus said:
What does this statement mean?

" the only to vote so far...."

Huh?

Should probably spell check your posts before you attempt to call someone out randomly. Otherwise it just looks dumb...
Click to expand...

Only one vote for the prosecutor presented the facts in an objective manner.
Duh. Only a cop falacing fanboy could believe that.
 
U

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
WalkingWolf said:
A crazy lying felon, and the prosecutor KNEW it. It is illegal in most states for an attorney to put a witness on the stand they KNOW is going to lie. This guy did exactly that.
Click to expand...

It is illegal for an attorney to suborn perjury, which is the act of encouraging someone to commit perjury. I'm not sure how an attorney is to know exactly what a person will say under oath. In fact, our entire practice of putting a witness under oath is based on the premise that a person is less likely to lie either having taken a solemn oath to tell the truth, or at least when it is 100% clear that any lie would be subject to perjury penalties.

I think some folks are putting the prosecutor in an impossible catch-22. If he doesn't let witnesses testify who offer testimony that would support an indictment, he is clearly gaming the system away from an indictment. If he let's such witnesses testify, then points out to the public that their testimony is completely at odds with forensic evidence he is accused of suborning perjury?

Perhaps a little but too much anti-cop bias going on here.

WalkingWolf said:
He needs to be Nifonged.
Click to expand...

From The Urban Dictionary:

Urban Dictonary said:
Nifonged describes the railroading or harming of a person with no justifiable cause, except for one's own gain. It is someone being taken advantage of unfairly by someone without scruples or morals. It is created more in disdain of North Carolina/Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong, and his screwing of 3 Duke University Lacrosse Team members and helping to inflame a tense racial situation for his own glory, ego, and political gain.
Click to expand...

Are you using this board to advocate for illegal conduct toward another person in violation of the rules of the forum?

forum rules said:
(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.
Click to expand...

Or did I misunderstand your use of the term "nifonged"?

Charles
 
twoskinsonemanns

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Primus said:
What does this statement mean?

" the only to vote so far...."

Huh?

Should probably spell check your posts before you attempt to call someone out randomly. Otherwise it just looks dumb...
Click to expand...

Man you hadn't even posted in this thread and I was already picking on you.
I was pissy from just having come from begging my local LEO chief to sign off on a Class III item.
I apologize.
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
JoeSparky said:
If I remember the televised news release where the Grand Jury decision was released the Prosecutor made it quite clear he presented all the evidence available. Even going so far to say that several witnesses had changed their claims/statements during the course of the investigation some in an effort to mesh with other evidence released during the investigation.

And per my understanding since the Grand Jury proceedings are a venue in which to determine if criminal charges are warranted, he went far beyond what he was required to do to convince the grand jury to indict. Of course, I don't believe it was his intent to have the officer indicted and was using the grand jury process to seem to step back from prosecutorial discretion to press charges or not.

IMO, Riots were a given in this situation---- Either riots to complain about the lack of indictment or riots in celebration of the indictment!

As to the poll questions--- I do believe he manipulated the Grand Jury. He presented the case to get the decision he wanted. I don't see any criminality in this process though--- I do see some who are not happy with the resultant decision however.

And as a final edit---- I answered the poll in the affirmative to the last question..... He did present the case in an objective manner!

Even though it has me standing with Primus---- (see the 3rd line below in my signature!)
Click to expand...

So a lawyer has no responsibility to insure that the testimony of a witness HE IS CALLING is bat-chit crazy?

We found out ... another POS gov't official IMO.
 
skidmark

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
My three choices were:

He intentionally manipulated the grand jury into falsifying evidence

I've already addressed this, but once again WTF? How can a grand jury falsify evidence? This option makles no sense and thus was disregarded


He presented evidence in a biased manner.

Well, of course he did. Every prosecutor presents evidence in a manner biased towards the outcome they are seeking. Just as every defense attorney presents evidence in a manner biased towards the outcome they are seeking. The question might be: Why did McCullogh bother with a grand jury if he had no intention of prosecuting Wilson?


He presented evidence in an objective manner.

It all depends on what your definition of "objective" is. Perhaps you are trying to ask if the evidence was presented in a (to coin a phrase) fair and balanced manner, with no bias towards any particular outcome? That would probably be the most desirable objective; seek the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Another objective might be to use the grand jury to bolster a decision to use prosecutorial discretion and not file charges. Yet another objective might be to lay the foundation for a civil suit relating to damage of reputation.

(Of the three, only the third objective listed is ethically reprehensive.)

Given the flaws in the questions, I could not cast a vote for any.

stay safe.
 
WalkingWolf

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
skidmark said:
My three choices were:

He intentionally manipulated the grand jury into falsifying evidence

I've already addressed this, but once again WTF? How can a grand jury falsify evidence? This option makles no sense and thus was disregarded


He presented evidence in a biased manner.

Well, of course he did. Every prosecutor presents evidence in a manner biased towards the outcome they are seeking. Just as every defense attorney presents evidence in a manner biased towards the outcome they are seeking. The question might be: Why did McCullogh bother with a grand jury if he had no intention of prosecuting Wilson?


He presented evidence in an objective manner.

It all depends on what your definition of "objective" is. Perhaps you are trying to ask if the evidence was presented in a (to coin a phrase) fair and balanced manner, with no bias towards any particular outcome? That would probably be the most desirable objective; seek the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Another objective might be to use the grand jury to bolster a decision to use prosecutorial discretion and not file charges. Yet another objective might be to lay the foundation for a civil suit relating to damage of reputation.

(Of the three, only the third objective listed is ethically reprehensive.)

Given the flaws in the questions, I could not cast a vote for any.

stay safe.
Click to expand...

Yes, just like Nifong, he did the very same thing that McCulloch did, and was disbarred for it. Putting up a witness that is not credible and he knew the testimony was lies he should be prosecuted. There is a clear record of witness 40's fubars that were known well before she testified to the grand jury. She was a convicted felon, a nut case, who numerous times inserted herself into investigations making up stories. Yet this idiot put her on the stand anyway. This is not the GJ's fault, he clearly violated the trust of the people, and his oath.

He even admitted it in an interview trying to put a positive spin on putting a liar on the stand to commit perjury and not bothering to tell the GJ it was perjury.

This “lady clearly wasn't present,” McCulloch said. “She recounted a story right out of the newspaper,” backing up Wilson's version of events.

Keep in mind this was his star witness.
 
Last edited:
The Truth

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Anyone who doesn't think this smells to high heaven has their head in the sand or is a cop apologist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top