Key Ferguson Witness Sandra McElroy Faked Entire Testimony. Had Lied To Police Before, Report Finds

originally posted by: Skaffa
It's not a false flag, but it does seem like it has turned into some kind of social experiment.

It does seem that way doesn't it? There's also something peculiar concerning all of the recent Civil Rights issues with the SELMA movie about to hit theaters soon. It might be nothing but what if…?

a reply to: lostbook

Classic Authoritarian recipe.

Diffuse the outrage with time.
Prepare the LEO witnesses and cook the evidence.
Unveil the cake. Carve it up and sell the pieces.

Shut the whole operation down before the citizens realize the eggs were rotten. The intimidation, character assassination and helpful media will clean up the remaining messes.

The US "justice system" is rotten from top to bottom. It should be tossed. It shouldn't even be possible to convict people in this system due to the rampant corruption. Collusion from LEO's, prosecutors, public defenders and judges are the only thing holding it all together. You might say they all have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

This lady is a whackjob, no doubt, and a liar.
Just like many of the pro-Brown witnesses turned out to be.

As I pointed out in the other thread about this same person (witness #40) there were liars on both sides, black on black witness intimidation of people that wanted to tell the truth about the incident and the fact that the whole "hands up don't shoot" thing was a complete lie.

Cling to this one idiot witness if you feel it's your smoking gun and somehow validates your worldview and good luck with that.

The Truth You Don't Want To Hear

Obama was wrong, at least in the case of Darren Wilson. In viewing thousands of pages of FBI interviews and grand jury testimony, it becomes eminently clear that many members of the local community did make up the story about Michael Brown being executed by Wilson – and pressured others to lie to police or keep silent.

a reply to: abe froman

...At least 12 witnesses claimed that Brown was shot from behind, which was factually false. At least 16 witnesses said Brown’s hands were up when he was shot, which was factually false. One witness said Wilson used a Taser, then a gun: false. Another said she witnessed the events, but admitted she was blocks away when the events occurred. Still another witness said there were two officers involved in the shooting, and admitted she couldn’t tell what she’d seen and what she’d read about the case. One witness admitted in testimony to changing his story to “coincide with what really happened.” Another witness said that he was friends with Brown, and that Brown was shot while on his knees. When informed that such a story contradicted all physical evidence, the man admitted that he had not seen the shooting and then asked if he could leave because he was “uncomfortable.”

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: feldercarb

And yet she testified twice?

If the prosecution had so many issues with her how did she make it to the bench?

The reason she came back I believe is because she did not bring her "notebook" the first time. She claimed that she wrote everything down during her original grand jury testimony but did not bring the notebook. Thus, she had to come back with the notebook in hand.

With this case and the opposition to the District Attorney , it was decided that anyone who claimed knowledge in the case will be allowed to testify. If someone had said that they "remote viewed" the incident from New Mexico, they would have been flown in to testify before the grand jury. You could have claimed you were an eyewitness and said that Michael Brown did not die due to the bullets but died due to being touched by the Grim Reaper. Like former Mayor Guilani said, there probably was no need for a grand jury. Going off only the physical evidence a no true bill could have been issued within two weeks of the incident. The grand jury was so that the Brown family lawyers could not say that evidence had been suppressed. Thus, every kooky eyewitness had to have their 10 seconds of fame at the grand jury.

a reply to: feldercarb

And that was the problem people had with how this was handled, they threw anything and everything at the GJ and overloaded them with info.

Why in gods name would this lady, or anyone for that matter, be allowed to testify when they are making everything up and it is known?

From what I have seen, the experts that have voiced their opinion on the autopsy and wound on the hand say that it does not conclusively proof anything either way.

originally posted by: xuenchen
The big question is:

Did the Grand Jury believe her?

There were many "witnesses".

c'mon, the prosecutor brought her in as a "witness".....what does the word "Witness" mean to you...the prosecutor either lied about her being a "witness" or he was to stupid to do a simple check to see it she was legit....how does anyone know now, if any of the witnesses that collaborated the LEO's testimony is legit.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: feldercarb

And that was the problem people had with how this was handled, they threw anything and everything at the GJ and overloaded them with info.

Why in gods name would this lady, or anyone for that matter, be allowed to testify when they are making everything up and it is known?

From what I have seen, the experts that have voiced their opinion on the autopsy and wound on the hand say that it does not conclusively proof anything either way.

To a point you answered your own question. If the experts testified that the evidence did not support nor refute either argument then eyewitness testimony could sway the decision. Unfortunately, people either wanted to manipulate the verdict or wanted their 10 seconds of fame and came forward as witnesses. Also, the media by interviewing everyone they could claiming to be an eyewitness was contaminating eyewitness "evidence".

One thing to remember, the law is suppose to be innocent until proven guilty. If that is true and the experts could not show the physical evidence to be solidly for one side or the other, then a no true bill should be the verdict. Some may not like it but shouldn't we work to protect that portion of our justice system?

a reply to: abe froman

this is why we have TRIALS!!!...it sorts this kind of crap out...this is exactly why the prosecutor should have ordered this to go to trial...

a reply to: abe froman

double post

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: abe froman

this is why we have TRIALS!!!...it sorts this kind of crap out...this is exactly why the prosecutor should have ordered this to go to trial...

The grand jury is a type of trial. That is what is not being understood. It is a trial by peers to determine if there is enough evidence that a criminal trial should be conducted. The grand jury is still a trial. It may be considered a pre "criminal trial" trial.

a reply to: lostbook

It does seem that way doesn't it? There's also something peculiar concerning all of the recent Civil Rights issues with the SELMA movie about to hit theaters soon. It might be nothing but what if…?

Who knows.

Lately the pentagon has also been spending heavily on research projects investigating protests and social movements in general.

Minerva documents

Doom edition

It's only logical i guess.

a reply to: Skaffa

I live in Saint Louis and at times wonder if this is some type of Psy Ops. Here are two news stories that happened in St Louis in the last two days.

First, on the Fox affiliate, April Simpson (who is an African American Reporter) was reporting a story where toy guns were modified to become lethal. There was a purple super soaker that was modified to contain a shotgun. There was also a mention of toy pistol that had been modified to fire .22 bullets. During the story April Simpson is interviewing an Illinois State Police Commander who just so happens to be African American. Paraphrasing his quote is that it is difficult to determine a real gun from a toy gun until it has been used. (Sounds like the Walmart shooting situation to me).

The second story is that the city (not the county which is separate) of Saint Louis is looking to hire an additional 160 policemen at the cost of 8 Million dollars (I think per year). First this needs to be passed by the board of aldermen and then go to a vote by people of Saint Louis City. The mayor in arguing for these additional police officers was quoting statistics from other protest cities where there has been an uptick in violent crime after the protests. I am waiting for Saint Louis County to follow suit. They will probably argue for more police based on closing all those small muncipalities.

So in the end, after all these protests; what will be the end result. More police with cameras to catch people in their actions. More cameras probably located throughout the area. You also have an excited portion of the population that feels that they are either being oppressed or disrespected. Is this not the optimum situation to have more arrests and incarcerations?

One thing I have noticed when I read comments to stories of unrest; there seems to be this belief (by some) that white people will get what is coming to them and GOD will administer his just punishment. I wonder what their reactions will be if they get the exact opposite of the "justice" they seek. Realize this is still a small portion of our population that has this type of view. The problem is that it seems to be breeding and also that the other side is getting just as radicalized to the other extreme. And I haven't even mentioned the flap over the Michelle Obama Target comment.