National Bar Association Lawyers Release Statement Indicating Ferguson Prosecutor Corruption

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Willtell

All they want is to win their case

What do defense attorneys want to do? Lose?

A prosecutor has a higher calling since they can jail people

They suppose to search for the truth and avoid bias

This guy didn’t search for the truth nor avoid bias

originally posted by: Willtell


A prosecutor has a higher calling since they can jail people

No. Only a judge or jury can do that.

They suppose to search for the truth and avoid bias

No. They are supposed to prosecute accused criminals.

This guy didn’t search for the truth nor avoid bias

Right. The grand jury did.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: deadeyedick



Oh. I see. You know that the jury members were threatened then. Only possible explanation.

Got it.

only those present know for sure but the case could be made very well that it happened.
too many things do not add up like how they processed 5000 pgs of information in under 70 hrs including meals and what not.
witnesses that are now missing and unable to give testimony yet they ignored that when one of them had contridicting statments to the decision reached.
then we have the reasons stated in this op
wilson claimed he was almost knocked out but managed to kill brown and travel 150ft to do it.
the list goes on and on but for some reason all this was ignored so that a trial would not happen.


how would you pull off all this without making some threats backed up by cops?

a reply to: deadeyedick
The grand jury met on 25 separate days.

5,000 pages is not much when spread out.

Yes, they are allowed to review evidence while not in a jury session.

question, doesn't any body think that the grand jury knew what was going on.
doesn't anyone think that they knew the sh@@ storm that was about to come from no indictment.

does anyone think about that the DA gave them five charges they could use to indite Wilson with.

knowing all that they still came back with a no true bill, doesn't that say something other than it was unfair, i mean five different charges and they chose not indite on any charges. kinda speaks loud to me.

i would much rather a jury of my peers/ 12 citizens decide if i was going to be charged with a crime than a elected politician.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

when you look at all the things ignored like missing witnesses and they still chose not to indict on the lesser of the charges then yes that is loud as hell.

a reply to: Murgatroid

I don't really think there are that many Masons. In my city the lodge has a website with group photos of all the members. It would be pretty obvious if the judges were Masons. From what I saw, there are maybe 30 total for a city of about 350,000 people. That wouldn't be very many jurors, judges and attorneys.

I will say, however, that the legal system is setup and written/amended/built by people that manipulate the system. It's written for people that intend to manipulate it. If you don't know the loopholes, you're screwed. It's very much like the tax laws in this country. The people benefiting from the tax loop holes are the same ones influencing their creation.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

well surprise surprise surprise a predominantly black lawyers association and a havard law professor that is a rhodes scholar, say that the system is corrupt and the da was part of.

who would have thunk that.

"Predominantly black lawyers associations" comments are less valid?

Who would have thunk to say something like that?

I'm not a lawyer or black and I can smell the cover up from a thousand miles away.

a reply to: deadeyedick

only those present know for sure

Well, there is stuff like physical evidence, including the autopsy.

all this was ignored so that a trial would not happen.

You may know what was "ignored." I don't. I wasn't on the grand jury.

a reply to: Phage

That's not true in the least. Juries must be instructed according to their State laws, they must be made aware of all pertinent laws and the situations of which they can be considered broken and make their rulings accordingly, they can't just choose.

a reply to: Kali74

Juries must be instructed according to their State laws, they must be made aware of all pertinent laws and the situations of which they can be considered broken and make their rulings accordingly, they can't just choose.

I see. "If the glove doesn't fit. You must acquit." Is that the sort of thing you are talking about?

It is up to the jury to decide a case. In this case, the jury decided that there was not sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against Wilson. That was their job. They were not there to determine guilt or innocence. Are you saying that the grand jury was not properly instructed? How about this:

Just before the Darren Wilson grand jury began deliberating, the two prosecutors in the room gave the grand jurors an unusual message: Ignore part of the Missouri law giving police officers broad power to use deadly force.

news.stlpublicradio.org...

The instruction was in reference to a Missouri law which, in spite of being unconstitutional, remains on the books. Do you think such an instruction would work in favor of Wilson? Seems like the opposite to me.

a reply to: Phage

you know some of it like he had no business chasing down brown when help was 60 sec away and wilson and brown were injured

there were two possibly armed suspects yet he left cover to give chase

you know that a couple witnesses went missing shortly after providing staments and they are still missing.

a reply to: Phage

I'm glad you brought that up and provided me a source I didn't have to dig around for. This is precisely the manner in which they threw the case...

“Real quick, can I interrupt about something?” interjected Alizadeh. “Previously, in the very beginning of this process, I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest.

“So if you all want to get those out. What we have discovered, and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the State of Missouri does not comply with the case law.

“....And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri Supreme Court, I'm sorry United States Supreme Court cases....

“So the statute I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law.

“…I don't want you to get confused and don’t rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago.”

A grand juror asks, “So we’re to disregard this?”

Alizadehanswers: “It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that’s not correct, ignore it totally.”

When a grand juror asks more questions,

Whirley chimes in, “We don’t want to get into a law class.”

Link

That's confusing as hell and they did BS like that throughout the whole damn thing.

a reply to: deadeyedick

you know some of it like he had no business chasing down brown when help was 60 sec away and he was injured

Why wouldn't he go after a suspect who had assaulted him and tried to take his weapon? He's just going to let him go?

there were two possibly armed suspects yet he left cover to give chase

Where?

you know some of it like he had no business chasing down brown when help was 60 sec away and he was injured

What do you mean "missing?" What sort of witnesses? Someone who said something on TV or someone who gave a sworn statement? Someone who was sought out to give grand jury testimony and could not be found? Do you think eyewitness statements are infallible? Do you accept eyewitness reports which conflict with physical evidence?

www.dailykos.com...

a reply to: Kali74

That's confusing as hell and they did BS like that throughout the whole damn thing.

Alizadehanswers: “It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that’s not correct, ignore it totally.”

Sound pretty clear to me.

a reply to: Phage

If I'm not mistaken, he believes those are all reasons that Wilson should've been indicted.

a reply to: Phage

Not in context of everything else she said.

a reply to: Kali74

A grand juror asks, “So we’re to disregard this?”

Alizadeh answers: “It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that’s not correct, ignore it totally.”

Yes, it is quite clear.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

when you look at all the things ignored like missing witnesses and they still chose not to indict on the lesser of the charges then yes that is loud as hell.

i'm sure they weren't missing because that they were afraid of that snitches get stitches, or that the knew that their story wouldn't hold up in questioning. many witness's just like big mikes friend johnson who was right there with big mike and said he was shot in the back, and we know for a fact that he wasn't shot in the back.

or the witness that said they saw what happened and later said that they heard story and told it as the truth, or the ones that recanted the statements when shown the evidence didn't match their story. or the ones who statements changed

that speaks louder than hell to me.

a reply to: Phage

When jurors ask questions she says, let's not get into a law class.