Witness 40

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Zeke

I'd have to dig it up but McCulloch recently reported that there was all sorts of testimony -- from both camps -- he found personally less than credible but that ALL statements were turned over to the Grand Jury.

Sum? He filtered nothing.

That the reasonable people of a Grand Jury found one side more truthful than the other is just what occurred.

It's in the article you accused me of not reading. He never said whether it was from both camps and, of course, it's just him saying this and in a radio interview, not under oath.

As for "filtering", it's prosecutorial malpractice to sit there and allow a witness to commit perjury without challenge or cross-examination.

John

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Boreas

It's in the article you accused me of not reading. He never said whether it was from both camps and, of course, it's just him saying this and in a radio interview, not under oath.

As for "filtering", it's prosecutorial malpractice to sit there and allow a witness to commit perjury without challenge or cross-examination.

John

There was challenge: other witnesses.

That the reasonable people of a Grand Jury found one side more truthful than the other is just what occurred.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Zeke

There was challenge: other witnesses.

Nobody supporting Wilson's story was challenged, including Witness 40 whose testimony was considered unreliable by the FBI and who had a history of presenting fabricated testimony to the police.

Not to mention her history as a criminal and a vocal racist.

That the reasonable people of a Grand Jury found one side more truthful than the other is just what occurred.

How do you suppose they would have decided if they had known the truth about Witness 40?

John

[Zeke]

The same, considering how they (apparently) felt about the veracity of witnesses supporting Brown.