In an interview with radio station KTRS, St. Louis Prosecutor Bob McCulloch admitted that he knew that several witnesses were flat out lying
but allowed them to testify before the grand jury anyway. He seriously insisted that it was important for the jury to hear these lies to make their determination on whether Darren Wilson should stand trial for the murder of Michael Brown.
Please join me below the fold.
KTRS: Why did you allow people to testify in front of the grand jury in which you knew their information was either flat-out wrong, or flat-out lying, or just weren't telling the truth?
McCulloch: Well, early on, I decided that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything was going to be presented to the grand jury. And I knew that no matter how I handled it, there would be criticism of it. So if I didn't put those witnesses on, then we'd be discussing now why I didn't put those witnesses on. Even though their statements were not accurate.
So my determination was to put everybody on and let the grand jurors assess their credibility, which they did. This grand jury poured their hearts and souls into this. It was a very emotional few months for them, physically and emotionally. It took a lot of them. I wanted to put everything on there. I thought it was much more important to present everything and everybody, and some that, yes, clearly were not telling the truth. No question about it.
He knew there would be criticism whether he allowed to let false testimony be presented or not, so the only logical course of action was to let loose the liars. That makes a hell of a lot of sense. If you are out of your consarned mind.
There were people who came in and, yes, absolutely lied under oath.Some lied to the FBI. Even though they're not under oath, that's another potential offense — a federal offense.
I thought it was much more important to present the entire picture.
There's talk of one witness now, and some of the media is doing exactly what I said they would do, they pull out one witness and just latch on to that, and this lady clearly wasn't present when this occurred. She recounted a statement that was right out of the newspaper about Wilson's actions, and right down the line with Wilson's actions. Even though I'm sure she was nowhere near the place.
Now why would anyone "latch on" to the fact that a District Attorney knowingly allowed false testimony to be presented to a grand jury in such a highly charged and divisive case as the Michael Brown murder? That is a real puzzler.
The rules that govern these proceedings in Missouri are clear. Rule 4-3.3 states:
A lawyer shall not knowingly...offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer's client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
So not only has this DA defied logic and the stated law by allowing "witnesses" he knows to be lying, he has no interest in seeking perjury charges against them. That is some mighty fine District Attorneying there, Bob. Well, at least Darren Wilson thinks so.