As bad as this story has become now that we know that the Medical Examiner never took any pictures at the scene because he couldn't be bothered to replace the batteries in his camera, that the were never any fingerprint test done on Officer Darren Wilson's weapon, that Wilson's story changed from the time he talked to investigators to when he spoke to the Grand Jury and he was never cross-examined on that fact...
We now know the St. Louis Prosecutor Bob McCulloch was fully aware that "Witness #40" (who has been revealed to be Sandra McElroy), not only posted racist rants on her facebook and in her personal journal, not only was an open supporter of Darren Wilson and posted pictures of Michael Brown's dead body with the caption "Justice Served", but that Mr. McCulloch knew this witness was lying about even being at the scene of the shooting yet he still put her up on the stand for the Grand Jury anyway.
McCulloch explained that he decided to let “anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything” testify before the jurors, out of the belief that he would be criticized no matter how he approached the possible prosecution of Officer Darren Wilson, who Brown following a confrontation this past August.
He also admitted that the testimony of “Witness 40,” identified in a grand jury transcript as 45-year-old Sandra McElroy, lacked credibility.
“This lady clearly wasn’t present when this occurred,” McCulloch said. “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.”
Why exactly would a prosecutor let people that
he believes are lying testify before a Grand Jury - particularly when that witness just happens to be
one of the couple that matches the story claimed by Officer Wilson.
So when people are sure that "no reasonable people" could believe that the Grand Jury made a wrongful decision, it's revelations like this that make it clear exactly why people have little confidence in this Grand Juries results and the validity of their decision.
During the interview McCulloch claims that those who criticize his handling of this case are only doing so for "Political Gain" and are making "Devious" arguments that are invalid because people hadn't criticized him on his handling of the Pine Lawn Police Shooting which occurred just one month before the Michael Brown shooting.
30-year-old Christopher Maurice Jones of Bel-Ridge died from a single gunshot after fleeing from an early-morning Interstate 70 traffic stop. An evidence synopsis says Jones was driving 114 miles per hour before he crashed on the southbound I-170 exit ramp and ran away.
The report says Jones resisted several attempts by officer Nicholas Stone to put him in handcuffs, including three stun-gun discharges.
He tries to argue that those who've questioned his fairness and honesty in this case are somehow "invalid" because they didn't do it in that case, which also involved a white officer and a black victim. Well, maybe they
should have questioned it then too - but that doesn't mean they shouldn't question him now. All through the interview McCulloch is IMO exceedingly arrogant, and claims that the Grand Jury didn't put "any stock at all" in the testimony of McElroy who was the witness who claimed - and he himself quoted as being accurate - that Michael Brown performed a "full charge" at Darren Wilson even though the distance he apparently traveled (approx. 25 feet) could have been traveled in far less than 6.572 seconds if indeed a "full charge" had been attempted rather than
Wilson Brown simply
falling forward as he succumbed to his wounds.
As a matter of fact, if Brown only traveled 25 ft in that period of time, he was moving at just 3.802 ft per second, or 2.59 mph, which is not exactly a "Charge" by any definition.
Also - as noted in the comments - per Buzzfeed.
According to Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, RULE 4-3.3, “A lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.”
The law also says that 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. 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.”
Sat Dec 20, 2014 at 12:14 PM PT: Coverage by Ari Melber on Chris Hayes Last Night
St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch admitted Friday that he believed multiple witnesses lied under oath while testifying before the grand jury that heard the case of Michael Brown, an unarmed teen who was shot dead by a police officer in August.
In a lengthy interview with the local radio channel KTRS 550, McCulloch said that he did not plan to pursue charges against witnesses who may have lied and that it was his decision early in the process to let anyone who claimed to have witnessed Brown’s Aug. 9 death to be presented before the grand jury.
“I thought it was much more important to present anybody and everybody,” McCulloch said, “and some, yes, clearly were not telling the truth, no question about it.”
