Ferguson Corruption PROOF

originally posted by: Phage
Nice bunch of selective redaction there. Why did you omit this part of the Grand Jurors query?

We tried to approximate it, it was six or seven seconds, but do you know exactly?

Seems they had a pretty good handle on things. That's something I noticed, the jurors asked astute questions of the witnesses.

You also failed to mention that the report being discussed was the FBI report, not the one posted in the Washington Times. You seem to be implying that the prosecutor was lying. Do you know if the FBI report had a timeplot or did you just want to let the insinuation lie there?

A poor copy & paste job on my part, it seems. You'll note that this missing bit overlaps the page break. Given that I give you the page numbers and document links, ascribing error for malice is a bit much, don't you think?

I specifically stated that the prosecutor did not present that image, but "a report and the actual audio" so I'm not sure where you get any implication of lying from or what precisely you are getting at. My annoyance is with the lack of follow up. With audio of a discrete duration that closely matches testimony and verification from the company that the recording took place at the time of the shooting, and with the evidence from the crime scene establishing about how far Brown could have traveled... why didn't the prosecutor connect those dots?

The prosecutors challenged other witnesses when evidence appeared to contradict their testimony. Jurors even challenged Wilson's odd testimony that Brown had complete control of the weapon when it was visible to him. Why did they not challenge the description of Brown's movement, based on two known pieces of evidence?

The jurors aren't trained for this stuff - they seemed to have an inkling at some connection, and asked the prosecutors for help... and the prosecutors left them hanging.

I have not seen the FBI report, but the prosecutor says that there is no timeline in it.

a reply to: Greven

Given that I give you the page numbers and document links, ascribing error for malice is a bit much, don't you think?

It wouldn't be the first time it's been done (people have been known some pretty wild distortions complete with links to the source) but I don't have a problem with your explanation about the truncation of the question. But there was an implication that the chart you displayed was part of the report which was being discussed or an implication that it was intentionally withheld from the jury.

why didn't the prosecutor connect those dots?

Because they were presenting evidence, not prosecuting. That's their job before there is a trial. They begin prosecuting when there is a criminal trial. Perhaps if there had been a trial they would have tried to convince the jury the timing was significant in determining if Wilson felt he was under threat. Perhaps not, perhaps they would have failed to see any significance either.

The prosecutors challenged other witnesses when evidence appeared to contradict their testimony. Jurors even challenged Wilson's odd testimony that Brown had complete control of the weapon when it was visible to him. Why did they not challenge the description of Brown's movement, based on two known pieces of evidence?

I don't know which other piece of evidence you are talking about but you have been implying that the jurors were unconcerned about the timing of the gunshots because information was withheld from them by the prosecutors. Obviously they were concerned about it enough to make an accurate estimate of the timing. With that in mind, are you assuming that they did not give it any further consideration? Did you think that maybe they didn't really find it significant?

The jurors aren't trained for this stuff - they seemed to have an inkling at some connection, and asked the prosecutors for help... and the prosecutors left them hanging.

They asked the prosecutors for something which the prosecutors did not have. Something which they didn't really need from the prosecutors anyway because their estimate was correct within half a second. You're second guessing the jury.

a reply to: Phage
Their job in a grand jury is to find the truth. In such a role, they assist and guide jurors. That's literally what they are there for. If you think otherwise, you are misguided about the process. Prosecutors do not have to call a grand jury. Prosecutors can even ignore a grand jury decision and indict someone on charges after a grand jury has not. They just get to skip presenting evidence for a case to a judge if they secure a grand jury indictment.

For example, look a little more closely at the witness testimony if you are having trouble finding prosecutors challenging the witnesses. Look at Dorian Johnson's testimony, Grand Jury Volume 4, specifically around pages 155-159. You may consider this simple prodding, but go have a look at how the prosecutors handled Wilson's testimony - compare and contrast.

The crime scene measurements, which were established based on evidence and testimony, of how far Brown traveled. I linked you a slightly modified version before, so I don't know why you don't know about it now. I'm not sure how I have been implying the jurors were unconcerned with the timing - please clarify. You are seemingly rather hostile, attributing malicious intent and various other things to me, and I do not know why. I try to stick to the facts of a matter, not assumptions. Perhaps they did consider it, I do not know - Volume 24 is the last day of documented transcripts. It is only then that they near the link between the audio and crime scene, so far as I can tell.

I'm second guessing the way things were handled by the prosecutors, not the jury.

It is extremely late now, so forgive me if I don't respond for awhile.

a reply to: deadeyedick

I call NLBS on this post. In almost all cases a Grand Jury will find probable cause to indict; plain and simple!
The fact that a Grand Jury (hereinafter "GJ") did not indict states that there was more than plausible denial, the cop was simply right in his judgement. This is the fact. Call you lawyer friends and ask how likely it is for a GJ to find potential guilt and give the prosecuting attorney another star on his quest for political stardom. Stop this racially based nonsense and wake up! A nation divided is the goal. Let's not let foolishness assist them in achieving it.

Peace out!

P.S. Just received my autographed Al Sharpton picture for my wall….

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I believe this discrepancy arose due to a lack of communication.

Wilson testified that he had no contact with the Ferguson Police Department regarding the incident after leaving the hospital, or something like that. He told St. Louis investigators the next day that he had to stop them after noticing Brown had cigarillos in his hands, suspecting they might be the two from the theft, per this report:
Interview PO Darren Wilson

Therefore, the chief making the statement was probably just unsure.

Ok, so he did know or at least suspect, then, that Brown was involved in the burglary. Thank you for clearing up. For a while, it was believed that Wilson had no knowledge of the robbery call.

If he did know or not, I am not sure if that would change anything per se, regarding the nature of the shooting. We do know Brown and his buddy strong-armed a corner store clerk and ripped off a bunch of tobacco products. We do know that eventually, at some time, the store clerk called the cops and reported the robbery. And now we know that Wilson had indeed known about the robbery, and when he saw what Brown was carrying, suspected that he was one responsible. It's everything that follows that is in question, then.

originally posted by: notmyrealname


P.S. Just received my autographed Al Sharpton picture for my wall….

Dude, sleeping with that in your room at night has been proven to be as bad for your brain as lead paint and black mold.

Sorry, but Al Sharpton is but another tool of the establishment, one designed to instigate, outrage, and provoke.

Wilson stated that he back peddled when Brown charged him.

So perhaps he did cover the 36" that you estimate.

Wilson backed up to create distance while at the same time giving orders to get on the ground. Brown refused and continued his advance.

Also the trail of blood could be due to the street not being level. Perhaps it was gravity that carried it the distance from his body.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: deadeyedick



One man has a knife and is 20 ft in front of a man with a gun. The one with the knife starts to come at the other quickly.



Who wins? Gun or knife?



Knife does....because in 3-4 secs he will reach the gun holder before he can draw and fire.



Knives wielding threat will travel 20ft quicker every time.



Learned that in 3 (three) sep. Firearms training classes



So...your proof...isn't.

i will give you my address if you ever want a real life demo of your flawed logic

originally posted by: johngrissom
a reply to: deadeyedick



Interesting...

I dare you to do something stupid and try running from the cops while reaching for something out of their view.

Lets see how long you last.

I dare a cop that has two suspects who he believes are both armed and one is in front of his car and the other is behind his car i dare him to leave the cover of his car if he really believes them to be armed and dangerous.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Can you cite the evidence that Brown's blood trail began exactly where he turned around for me? What I remember reading (though it's been a few days) was that Wilson "estimated" where Brown turned around "approximately."



And then can you explain how any of this is evidence of corruption? And on who's part? Because at this point you're now claiming that multiple witnesses were "threatened with death" if they didn't change their story and that the grand jury was "corrupt" without offering any real evidence to support either statement. So far all you've demonstrated is that you don't agree with the grand jury's opinion and you're citing estimates and approximations as proof that there's corruption.

you and i have been through this. You do not absorb facts well. the blood trail was givin to the jury as browns last steps. we are trying to go by the accepted evidense here. they accepted the blood trail not me.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: deadeyedick



How could the witnesses not be lying about Brown being shot in the back when the autopsy showed he wasn't? Or was the ME in on it too?

several shots missed and they could have been fired at browns back as per witness statments. also brown had one wound that could have been from the front or back in his arm. With his arms by his side the wound exits the front part of the arm. however with his hands up in the air the wound enters from the front.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
a reply to: deadeyedick



It is not really proof of anything, though. However, we might have had a more accurate picture of times and distances had a real investigation been done of the crime scene in the first place:



Link



Link



The whole "investigation" was a farce, on top of the grand jury. I have actually seen more intensive investigation into the death's of a local 4H's prized goats than I have of Micheal Brown's shooting.



Either St Louis County has the most lazy, incompetent law enforcement and public servants in the country, or the investigation was deliberately shallow and half-assed because they didn't want a deeper examination.

My friend it is very much proof of what you say that justice was not served and that corruption is found this case by incompetence or something sinister. I was not out to prove any thing but that they did not find the truth and it is very clear that witnesses could have been forced to lie because much of the evidence matches the statments of over 15 witnesses on the scene that changed when they sat down behind closed doors with men with guns.

this day and age it should all be on film.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Ok, here is something else that makes me suspicious. So in the earlier part of the whole investigation, it was claimed that when Wilson first encountered Brown and his buddy, that he was unaware of the robbery Brown had just committed, and had approached brown like any other random citizen walking in the street. Later, however, we learn that Wilson was aware of the robbery, and even suspected Brown was the suspect he was looking for. If he knew, that would really make certain parts of his testimony difficult to believe, because his reactions, behavior, and responses would not make any sense.

everything changed when the feds sent by holder roled into town and witnesses even disappeared. if someone more skilled than i would reverse engineer the event then a whole different pic. is formed that fits the physical evidense better than this one.

a reply to: deadeyedick

You're arguing with yourself now. Yes, the blood trail is Brown's last steps. As in the final steps he took. Not as in the point which he turned around, then moved, then his final steps. At not point did anybody, anywhere other than here, suggest that Brown turned around and immediately began putting blood on the asphalt. The witnesses YOU cite state that Brown was as far away as the sidewalk when he turned around, which would put another ten to fifteen feet into your little math problem.

Additionally, I asked you about Brown being shot in the back. Not Brown being fired upon and missed. YOU suggested he was shot in the back. Being shot at and missed doesn't count as being shot in the back. And I'll point out that there were ZERO casings recovered between the rear of Wilson's vehicle and the final engagement. So either Wilson fired at Brown immediately after exiting his vehicle and missed, or he didn't shoot at him again until Brown turned around and advanced towards him. According to the witnesses and physical evidence anyway.

I have no problem absorbing facts. I have a problem absorbing crap people make up, twist, bend, and shove to suit their own ill formed arguments.

originally posted by: Grovit

originally posted by: mysterioustranger

a reply to: deadeyedick



One man has a knife and is 20 ft in front of a man with a gun. The one with the knife starts to come at the other quickly.



Who wins? Gun or knife?



Knife does....because in 3-4 secs he will reach the gun holder before he can draw and fire.



Knives wielding threat will travel 20ft quicker every time.



Learned that in 3 (three) sep. Firearms training classes



So...your proof...isn't.

the guy i bought my pistol from told me that exact same thing like 2 days ago.

i couldnt believe it...

i extend the same offer to you as the one who posted that. it is a scare tactic to keep guns in the holsters of idiots.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Grovit

originally posted by: deadeyedick





ok then if we accept that brown was walking towards the officer then we can assume that he was not charging wilson then and the shooting was murder and wilson was in no danger from brown walking toward him and wilson lied. what else did wilson lie about?

or we can accept that brown may not have been moving at an even clip for the entire distance.

did you factor that into your theorem?

maybe he got faster as the distance got shorter

wilson stated a fast pace and that brown never stopped. givin the slow pace of 3x9 we can assume brown never went slower than that because if he did he would not be a threat so then any speed burst would add to the base distance of someone walking below the pace of an average human. also brown was above average and would staticaly travel faster that the average person.

So an American Football Lineman moves faster than a Cornerback?

So you are saying a 6'4", 290 lb person who is high on marijuana is going to be statistically faster than an average person, say 5'10" and about 165-170?

a reply to: deadeyedick

This comment alone proves you have no semblance of a clue about an idea about what you're talking about. It is well established, and long established, that 21 feet is the MINIMUM reactionary gap needed to draw, clear, and present one's firearm against an assailant who is advancing at you. Do an ounce of research and not only will you find that, but you'll find that many trainers think 21 feet is still too close.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Ahhh we're back to the mysterious "disappeared" witnesses. So now we have ferguson pd, st louis pd, the ME office, the FBI, the DA office, and the grand jury all on on this conspiracy of yours. Is there anybody who ISN'T involved in it?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

not quite but longer strides and adreniline help. i would refer you to the kenyans that can run faster than most all. Why have no corner backs ever won those fastest man alive titles? there are exceptions to being tall like extra weight that would slow some down. so who really knows

just because my style of thread writing and debate is not normal does not negate that the jury was at the lest misled.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: deadeyedick

This comment alone proves you have no semblance of a clue about an idea about what you're talking about. It is well established, and long established, that 21 feet is the MINIMUM reactionary gap needed to draw, clear, and present one's firearm against an assailant who is advancing at you. Do an ounce of research and not only will you find that, but you'll find that many trainers think 21 feet is still too close.

Not only that, but depending on the weapon holstered, there is also being familiar enough with it to have the safety off (if a 1911 or variant), a round in the chamber (if carried that way) and being able to aim and pull a trigger under adrenalized conditions. Anyone that has been in said situation will tell you that you lose dexterity and blood flow to your extremities due to your body forcing most of it and the oxygen to your brain. I would much rather have both (pistol and fixed blade knife) on me at all times. If someone is within my comfort zone distance and threatening me, I almost always go for my knife.....but alas....that is what my training has taught me to do and I am very comfortable with it.