Under increasing pressure and scrutiny as the public learns that St. Louis prosecutor Bob McCulloch knowingly called a witness to testify on behalf of Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson who was actually never even at the scene of the shooting, McCulloch came forward today
to speak publicly for the very first time since a decision was announced not to indict Darren Wilson.
His full interview with St. Louis radio station AM 550, and a breakdown of that interview, are below.
Since releasing an additional batch of documents from the grand jury proceedings, the public has learned that one witness in particular, Sandra McElroy, also popularly known as witness #40, was thoroughly discredited in her interrogation by the FBI a month before she ever appeared on two separate occasions before the grand jury.
In this interrogation, the FBI proved that McElroy, whose testimony would eventually mirror Wilson's better than any other witness, was never actually at the scene of the shooting and had concocted an elaborate and preposterous hoax of a narrative on why she was there, how she drove in, how she mysteriously drove off the scene, how she saw the entire incident from close range, how nobody could confirm her being there, how she had a deep and ugly racist history, and so much more. By the time she finished her interview with the FBI, McElroy had perjured herself not one or two times, but well over 100 times. Her story, insulting, demeaning, and fundamentally outrageous was completely debunked by the FBI over and over again, yet Bob McCulloch, fully aware of this, called her not once, but twice as a witness.
Before his interview today, McCulloch had only two options on what he could say about allowing McElroy to testify.
1. McCulloch could've said that he was completely and totally unaware of how thoroughly discredited McElroy was as a witness and that he didn't learn until after she testified that she had a history as a compulsive liar and had even injected herself into a high-profile criminal case in St Louis decades earlier. This would seem far-fetched, since her interrogation by the FBI was included in the grand jury documents and her own sordid history was as easy to find as a few quick Google search.
2. McCulloch could admit he was fully and completely aware that McElroy actually concocted her entire story from scratch, that she was never on the scene the day Wilson killed Mike Brown, that he knew she was a racist hack and Wilson supporter who meant the case harm, that she had perjured herself extensively before the FBI, and, if called before the grand jury would also perjure herself over and over and over again. This would seem to be the more likely of the two options, but it'd be hard to imagine McCulloch ever actually admitting such a thing.
Today, however, in the brazen and flippant manner in which he has done nearly everything regarding this case, he did just that.
McCulloch fully admitted that witness #40 "clearly wasn't present" at the scene of the shooting and that "she recounted her story right out of the newspaper."
Actually hearing him admit this is shocking because it's an almost indefensible strategy to call a witness before a grand jury when that witness has already been thoroughly discredited as a destructive liar who willfully perjured herself. The point is this—Sandy McElroy was not a witness. To call her to testify as such, not once, but twice, makes no legal, moral, or ethical sense whatsoever.
In his radio interview, McCulloch said he "determined early on" that he would allow witnesses to testify even if "their statements were not accurate." However, McElroy was not an inaccurate eyewitness who struggled to recount the facts of a traumatic event she actually witnessed, but is in a different category altogether. She wasn't inaccurate. She was delusional and destructive and nowhere near Canfield Drive on Aug. 9. To group her in with residents who were actually there, but gave wildly varying accounts, which is typical of eyewitnesses, is insincere at best. McElroy was not only dozens of miles away, she only came forward with the express intent of boosting Wilson's narrative.
To this end, she was wildly successful and her testimony has now been quoted by Sean Hannity and Fox News hundreds of times as a form of evidence that Mike Brown "charged at Darren Wilson like a football player."
Calling McElroy forward as a material witness to a shooting, knowing that she was not a witness at all, may actually be a federal crime. There is no doubt that McElroy committed perjury over and over again. She was told explicitly that if she testified that she witnessed this shooting when she was not anywhere near the scene, she would be committing a crime. But she doubled down repeatedly and was even allowed to present to the grand jury a fake journal she said she kept from the day of the shooting as a form of evidence proving that she was indeed a witness. The prosecutors are on record in the grand jury proceedings actually asking her to bring the journal with her when she returns to testify.
Again, why go through these motions for someone who has been thoroughly discredited as a complete and total sham? As McElroy clearly committed perjury, the question now arises about whether Bob McCulloch suborned perjury. Here's the legal definition of the crime,
It is a criminal offense to induce someone to commit perjury. In a majority of states, the offense is defined by statute.
Under federal Criminal Law (18 U.S.C.A. § 1622), five elements must be proved to convict a person of subornation of perjury. It first must be shown that the defendant made an agreement with a person to testify falsely. There must be proof that perjury has in fact been committed and that the statements of the perjurer were material. The prosecutor must also provide evidence that the perjurer made such statements willfully with knowledge of their falsity. Finally, there must be proof that the procurer had knowledge that the perjurer's statements were false.
It appears that all five elements of this crime were actually committed by Bob McCulloch in the case of Sandy McElroy.
The following four elements of this crime are obvious and verifiable. On their own this is enormously troubling.
1. There must be proof that perjury was committed. CHECK.
2. The statements of the perjurer must be material. CHECK.
3. The perjurer has to have made such statements with willful knowledge of their falsity. CHECK.
4. There must be proof that the procurer (Bob McCulloch) had knowledge that the perjurer's statements were false. CHECK.
The final element required is proof that the defendant made an agreement to testify falsely. A very strong case can be made that when the prosecution, fully and completely aware that McElroy did not witness the crime, asked her to bring in and present her journal from the day of the shooting, which was presented as evidence, that it was done so with the full knowledge that whatever was in it was completelyd false. In fact, the record shows that the prosecution knew that what was in the journal was false before they allowed it to be presented as evidence, but that they, in agreement with the witness, not only allowed her to perjure herself, but also fully encouraged the entire charade.
In their questioning of McElroy, members of the grand jury are actually recorded as telling her that they do not believe her to be a liar even though the prosecution has now admitted that everything McElroy said that day was a lie. In essence, a perjurer was given a full platform, for hours and hours, over the course of two days, to poison the well.
In his radio interview, McCulloch makes mention of the rarely used "investigative power" of grand juries, but witness #40, Sandra McElroy, had already been thoroughly investigated by trained professionals and found to lack all credibility. Amateur investigators were not needed in this case.
Equally troubling is McCulloch's statement that he has no intention of bringing charges of perjury against McElroy. Why tell her before she testified that "perjury is a crime" if when she commits perjury, in the most flagrant way possible, in the most important case in the modern history of St. Louis, if no true intention existed to hold them to this? How does the threat of a perjury charge hold any weight at all if it's threatened, but not used in such an obvious case?
Now that we know the facts of how McCulloch managed this case, a special prosecutor must be called and a new grand jury convened.