how do you know that they were wrong? there was no trial
i don't know
which is why a trial is needed to make that determination
You can't cross examine physical evidence.
But, if you want to put Dorian Johnson on the stand and make him admit that he participated in the assault, that would be ****ing hillarious.
i want the truth to emerge
wilson may have been justified in the shooting
but he may not have been
a jury trial would have allowed me to come to a determination i believed to be just
Insufficient evidence for the trial, as proven in the GJ proceedings.
Next.
one example of how that trial necessity is applicable to physical evidence
wilson asserted that brown scratched him/his face
yet there was no material under brown's nails as would be expected from someone who had so scratched another
there might be a very good explanation for that non-result
but it is one which could be answered in a trial setting
or the inability to have a reasonable explanation might cause one to conclude that wilson was not being honest in his testimony. and if he lied about that, what else was he lying about
but did all of the witnesses, whose testimony was in conflict with wilson's, admit they lied?
i don't think so
and i would want a trial to be able to sort out the truth from the fabrication
which is why i believe a finding of probable cause - NOT probable guilt - NOT probable innocence - should have been rendered by the grand jury
What part of Grand Jury and 12 jurors deciding that there was insufficient evidence for a trial do you not comprehend?
very flawed gj proceedings
that is the point
Did they admit they lied? According to what McCulloch said last night, yes. And you can see in the evidence their admissions.
All of this would have been covered in GJ.
Repeating the same thing over and over will not make it true.
but did all of the witnesses, whose testimony was in conflict with wilson's, admit they lied?
i don't think so
and i would want a trial to be able to sort out the truth from the fabrication
which is why i believe a finding of probable cause - NOT probable guilt - NOT probable innocence - should have been rendered by the grand jury
Its the face of a thug with a badge.justabubba;1064020978 [ATTACH=CONFIG said:67176385[/ATTACH]
one example of how that trial necessity is applicable to physical evidence
wilson asserted that brown scratched him/his face
yet there was no material under brown's nails as would be expected from someone who had so scratched another
there might be a very good explanation for that non-result
but it is one which could be answered in a trial setting
or the inability to have a reasonable explanation might cause one to conclude that wilson was not being honest in his testimony. and if he lied about that, what else was he lying about
because the evidence was presented in a very one-sided manner
the presentation was made to focus on that which exculpated wilson and away from the evidence which might convict him
Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally. - Vox
This is WHY we have jury trials. The Grand Jury failed miserably to do their job. The standard is not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
Its the face of a thug with a badge.
which causes the question
why would a prosecutor place before the grand jury the testimony of non-witnesses who admitted they were non-witnesses to events
that alone shows the bias of the prosecutor before the grand jury
Have you ever been in a shootout?
which causes the question
why would a prosecutor place before the grand jury the testimony of non-witnesses who admitted they were non-witnesses to events
that alone shows the bias of the prosecutor before the grand jury
Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally. - Vox
This is WHY we have jury trials. The Grand Jury failed miserably to do their job. The standard is not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
Because the people said they were witnesses, so they were called to testify. Only after their testimony was scrutinized by the jurors, themselves, was their testimony determined to be inaccurate or made up.
According to every news channel including MSNBC, yes they did. The ones who didn't were shown to not be there in the first place and were making **** up. The actual witnesses who were there and did witness the event tell the same story, it is Wilson's story.
Again, you need to gain a greater understanding of how the legal system works. If you can't even get past a GJ, you have no chance at trial unless you're counting on the jury disregarding the evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?