New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The Ferguson secrecy/leaks are a recipe for disaster

gigi

Mayor
Alright, Bugsy....
You're suspicious about whether or not the Grand Jury is hearing ALL the evidence because nothing damning of Wilson is being leaked?
What if everything being leaked was damning of Wilson and nothing was damning of Brown? Would you still be feeling that the GJ isn't hearing the evidence? Would you worry that Wilson wasn't getting a fair deal?

Brown's friend, who claimed he witnessed Brown being shot from behind admitted he lied.
He admitted he lied after the autopsy proved he did.

The forensic evidence also proves that the people who said that Brown only attempted to step away from the patrol car also lied. His DNA is inside the car. The wound to his hand and the blood spatter inside the car also support this finding. Witness testimony also speaks to exactly what the forensic evidence concludes.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Alright, Bugsy....
You're suspicious about whether or not the Grand Jury is hearing ALL the evidence because nothing damning of Wilson is being leaked?
What if everything being leaked was damning of Wilson and nothing was damning of Brown? Would you still be feeling that the GJ isn't hearing the evidence? Would you worry that Wilson wasn't getting a fair deal?

Brown's friend, who claimed he witnessed Brown being shot from behind admitted he lied.
He admitted he lied after the autopsy proved he did.

The forensic evidence also proves that the people who said that Brown only attempted to step away from the patrol car also lied. His DNA is inside the car. The wound to his hand and the blood spatter inside the car also support this finding. Witness testimony also speaks to exactly what the forensic evidence concludes.
You're yakking about my supposed suspicions. My post was not about that - it's about the complete lack of transparency since the day the kid was killed. That's what created the unrest in the beginning, and the secret legal proceedings just make things worse.

I'm not real interested in your selective use of what you think the evidence is - you assume the cop did nothing wrong without knowing the evidence submitted to the grand jury.
 

MrMike

Bless you all
Once again...

If the result isn't what the Fergies want and they go apeshit and riot. Send the ones that are arrested (rioting and looting) to Liberia to perform community service.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Once again...

If the result isn't what the Fergies want and they go apeshit and riot. Send the ones that are arrested (rioting and looting) to Liberia to perform community service.
And the process I criticized above maximizes the chances that there will be riots. You seem to have no interest in avoiding riots, and you may even hope for them to justify your hate.

BTW, your use of the word "apeshit" was quite the dog whistle.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
That's ridiculous. When people who are not in the grand jury room insist that they know the evidence presented to the grand jury, we are into the surreal.

One wonders why.
uh, ok. we should not form opinion based on anecdotal recollections of various persons then...
 

Charcat

One of the Patsy's
Amazing.

Lights years different than the supposed "opinions" of that woman being bandied about in right wing media (and even in legit media).

Another object lesson in how right wing lies are born.
But her report indicated the same thing. The wound to the thumb was at close range with gunpowder particles. What do YOU think that means?
 

BitterPill

The Shoe Cometh
Supporting Member
You wouldn't have confidence in the process if it were public.
I would, and the process is public. We are supposed to learn the Grand Jury's decision when it is announced, not through selective leaks.

Tell me, who do you thinks benefits from these selective grand jury leaks? The officer no doubt, and that will only further antagonize the rioters. If the cop did nothing wrong, he shouldn't need his allies to leak information, which leads me to suspect there may be a problem with his actions that day.
 
Last edited:

Bugsy McGurk

President
But her report indicated the same thing. The wound to the thumb was at close range with gunpowder particles. What do YOU think that means?
Hello? I don't pretend to be able to analyze the evidence, especially evidence we haven't seen that can only be analyzed by experts in any event.
 

gigi

Mayor
You're yakking about my supposed suspicions. My post was not about that - it's about the complete lack of transparency since the day the kid was killed. That's what created the unrest in the beginning, and the secret legal proceedings just make things worse.

I'm not real interested in your selective use of what you think the evidence is - you assume the cop did nothing wrong without knowing the evidence submitted to the grand jury.
What I think the evidence is? It's not about waht I think. This is what has come out, and I'm sorry if you have a hard time accepting that.

I am starting to think Wilson did nothing wrong. But from the beginning, I said and felt that we needed to wait for the investigations to be completed. If more comes out it may make a difference, but so far....nope.

If you want to change your mind and discuss something else, fine. But please don't tell us that you're not talking about something you clearly stated. Your top post is there for all to see. And I"m just asking you...if all the evidence that is being leaked were damning of Wilson, would you still lack confidence in this process?
 

BRU

Mayor
They will be able to see all the evidence once the Grand Jury reaches a decision.

No comment on protecting the integrity of the witnesses testimony? Justice is blind as the saying goes and all Grand Juries operate in secrecy. There's nothing nefarious about the use of a Grand Jury in this case.

You're wrong. As someone who lives in the area, I've read every article in the local paper and seen many local news casts about the Ferguson protests, and I can tell you that the protestors have already tried and convicted Officer Wilson. It doesn't matter what the evidence is - there will be chaos if they don't get the verdict they're demanding.
I've tried to explain all this to them multiple times; the problem is that many right here on this board have also tried and convicted Officer Wilson. So it doesn't matter what those of us who are local see in the paper every day all day. This case has 41 FBI investigators on it not to mention the Department of Justice. The evidence will be made public.
 

BRU

Mayor
I said it from the outset - the use of secret grand jury proceedings in the Michael Brown case was a horrible blunder, especially if no charges are brought.

No one can have any confidence in the process, as no one knows what is going on. Are the grand jurors being given all available evidence implicating Wilson? No one knows, but the "leak campaign" provides no cause for optimism. It's a leak campaign consisting of only one-sided opinions damning Brown and clearing Wilson. There has to be SOME evidence critical of Wilson, right? Eyewitness testimony, etc. But have you heard any such leaks from the grand jury proceedings? Nope.

So, if no charges are brought, it will be seen as an outrage. A whitewash. All due to the decision to do everything in darkness. A great way to ensure more unrest.

Downright dopey.
Maybe this will clear things up for you


Grand jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present; the proceedings are led by a prosecutor;[14] and the defendant has no right to present his case or (in many instances) to be informed of the proceedings at all. While court reporters usually transcribe the proceedings, the records are sealed. The case for such secrecy was unanimously upheld by the Burger Court in Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 US 211 (1979).[15][16] The dissenting opinion was joined by Justices Burger and Stewart but concurred with the Court's opinion as to the importance and rationale of grand jury secrecy. Writing for the Court, Justice Powell found that "if preindictment proceedings were made public, many prospective witnesses would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily"; "witnesses who appeared before the grand jury would be less likely to testify fully and frankly"; and "there also would be the risk that those about to be indicted would flee, or would try to influence individual grand jurors". Further, "persons who are accused but exonerated by the grand jury [should] not be held up to public ridicule".[15]
United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 US 677 (1958), permitted the disclosure of grand jury transcripts under certain restrictions: "a private party seeking to obtain grand jury transcripts must demonstrate that 'without the transcript a defense would be greatly prejudiced or that without reference to it an injustice would be done'" and must make its requests "with particularity".[15] Further, First Amendment protections generally permit the witnesses summoned by a grand jury to discuss their testimony, although Dennis v. United States, 384 US 855 (1966), found that such public discussion permits release of the transcripts of their actual testimony.[15]
The Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, requires the government to disclose to the defense any statements made by the accused to the grand jury, and, with respect to non-party witnesses, that after a witness has testified on direct examination at trial, any statement made to the grand jury by such witness be disclosed to the defense.
 
Top