Posted on 11/26/2014 4:11:44 PM PST by BenLurkin
Prosecutors exposed these inconsistencies before the jurors, which likely influenced their decision not to indict Wilson in Brown's death.
(Excerpt) Read more at bigstory.ap.org ...
“Inconsistency” wouldn’t be a synonym of “perjury” by any chance,would it?
“Inconsistency” is what lying is called now, I guess.
Only if one of the statements made under oath is shown to be false.
Which is how Bill Clinton lost his law license for a while.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1544869/posts
A somewhat misleading “headline”. The documents showed the “inconsistencies” in supposed “eye-witness” testimonies. In other words, the documents showed provable “lies” which should be grounds for prosecution as in “lying to a grand jury”, “lying to the police”, “aiding and abetting” social disorders, and being racist aholes.
Headline should have been: “Documents show some witnesses lied”.
But than again, it is the AP (Anti-American Propaganda news service).
Agreed and agreed
So all a “witness” needs to do is present oneself and give an inconsistent statement...
You can read/download the GJ transcript here. It’s over 2,000 pages.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-assets/grand-jury-testimony.pdf
If they’re under oath then their best bet is to tell the truth. No matter what they said previously when not under oath.
The attack begins first by hinting there were “serious” discrepencies..Note how the AP put 3 leftys on the case.
McCulloch was supposed to conduct a show trial and return a true bill. Worse yet by releasing the content of the hearings he exposed the heavy hand of the regime. Because he didn’t follow the “Police Brutality” line which was being used to hyphenate US by isolating and using “Afro-Americans” to disuade any attempt to “Impeach” as directed by Tzar (as in chief commissar) Obama. The collective known as the democrat party (in name only) will now punish McCullough .
Probable cause simply means that it is “more likely than not” that a crime was committed and “more likely than not” that the person involved committed the crime.
Simply put, it is just a tipping of the scales, however slight, in that direction.
In this case there was no likelihood of a crime having been committed — by Wilson.
The deceased, on the other hand, was guilty of strong arm robbery and assault on a peace officer.
The job of any jury is to try the evidence and determine the trustworthy testimony.
Any pretense to indict was found wanting. All jurors voted consistently not to indict on any charge.
My God, Officer Wilson has been royally hosed! If these were white witnesses saying this about a black cop, we would have the media, justifiably, screaming about the injustice. What is wrong with this country?!
It's the far left who has been using the old "all police officers are evil" garbage for decades (remember Obama himself saying the police in Boston "acted stupidly"?).
Well, with the Trayvon case and now Ferguson, they are slowly being found out. They are liars about justice and their old excuses aren't working as well anymore.
I’m sure the prosecutor’s would have worked just as hard to show any inconsistencies if it had been me or you. /sarc Oh wait, I’m pretty sure I would have been immediately arrested, and if unable to post bail, still be sitting in a dank dungeon cell.
Inconsistencies are absolutely normal between eyewitnesses.
In fact, if several people’s testimony agrees in every detail, then it is probable they got together and rehearsed a story before testifying.
Some of these people were probably intentionally lying, of course.
In reading all of the eye witness statements I realized that they fell into 2 categories. The first category would be the people who live in the apartment complex. Most of their accounts are full of subjective and emotional statements, such as “he shot him in cold blood”. Also, many of these witnesses only saw the final part of the encounter. I believe that all of their testimony was tainted by Michael Brown’s accomplice, who immediately went about the crowd claiming that the officer “shot his friend in the back”. Forensic evidence disproved this, and many subsequently changed their story.
The second group of witnesses were the people in the cars stopped by the patrol car blocking the street and a worker who did not live in the area. These witnesses saw virtually the entire encounter, so they were far more focused by the time the final shots were fired. their testimony is much more similar to that of the officer’s, and is also supported by the forensic evidence.
Did you read the article?
Under oath, several "witnesses" admitted they didn't see what happened, and either concocted their testimony based on hearsay from other people, and even to fit the autopsy report.
Just one of them:
Another witness had told the FBI after the shooting that he saw Wilson shoot Brown in the back, and then stand over his prone body to finish him off. But in his grand jury testimony, this witness, acknowledged that he had not seen that part of the shooting, and that what he told the FBI was "based on me being where I'm from and that can be the only assumption that I have."
There are many other examples. This wasn't an error in recollection. It was an outright fabrication.
The police should be prosecuting everyone of these people for lying under oath and/or filing a false police report. It shouldn't be tolerated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.