Buckeyes Riot Burn Destroy Property, Not A Thug In Sight
- Thread starter Turtle
- Start date
NO TRUE BILL means at least 9 of 12 didn't vote to indict. It doesn't necessarily mean "not even close to having enough evidence to bring a case to trial," especially if the grand jury was steered towards that result by the prosecution. For all you know the vote was 8-4 to indict.
Of the 9 white and 3 black jurors, aren't you interested to know who they voted? There's a reason McCulloch released everything having to do with that grand jury proceeding except the vote tally and the breakdown. I wonder what that reason is.
Coached by defense council? Really? His interview right after the shooting wasn't after he had been coached, and his testimony before the grand jury was mostly consistent with his original interview. He never testified that Brown was shot in the back, incidentally. Are you aware of that?
He made those claims in public right after the shooting, and during his interview with investigators. In that interview, he mentioned it 3 times, one time saying, "That's why I know he was hit because he stopped runnin' " And then the interviewers pressed him on it - did he actually see Wilson shoot Brown in the back, or was he just speculating based on what he saw? Johnson had already said he was kind of in shock and that's why he wasn't absolutely sure on some things. They wanted to know if being in the shock of the moment that he just assumed that Brown was shot as being the reason Brown stopped. That's when Johnson realized he didn't actually see Brown get shot in the back and conceded, "OK, so for the purposes, no. I did not see a hole in his shirt rip while I'm in shock."
Before the grand jury he testified that Wilson fired at Brown as Brown was running, and that's when Brown stopped and turned around towards Wilson, and he didn't know if Brown had been shot or not. "The second time he shot, I didn't know if it hit him or not, but he kind of jerked and that's when he stopped running. He just kind of stopped and turned around at the officer."
It's certainly plausible, and I'm not so sure it's all that accurate to state "Wilson's certainly match up better with the physical evidence, eg - Brown was not shot in the back," since Johnson's matches up precisely as well as Wilson's.
Are you aware that his defense council was sitting right beside him during his statement to the police because the interview took place at the defense council's office? Are you also aware that his defense council was sitting right outside the room when he gave his testimony to the grand jury, and the grand jury foreman told him he could call time out and speak to his attorney if he felt the need? Of course he was coached - he'd be crazy not to have been coached by his likely state appointed attorney.
Here's a direct quote from Johnson's statement to the police (p.33):
And yes, he backed away from that in his grand jury testimony because he obviously had been coached by his attorney. Even during the police interview the authorities knew there were no wounds to Brown's back.
For those who might want to read his testimony, I'd encourage them to do so and judge for themselves if his story "matches up precisely" with the physical evidence, especially around page 106 and pages 120-127. The way he describes the physical encounter between Brown and Wilson just doesn't hold water. His attorney did a good job keeping him from incriminating himself or admitting to any wrongdoing.
Last edited:
Yes I am.
Different council, not the same attorney at all, but yes, I am.
Yes, as every witness before a gran jury can excuse themselves and go outside and talk to their attorney and then return. They can do that as often as they like.
There's really no indication in his statement or his testimony that he was coached (it's highly unlikely that would have said three different times that Brown was shot in the back if he'd been coached). Not all attorneys coach their clients. Most don't, in fact. I dunno, maybe you're using "coach" to be interchangeable with "prepare," but they are quite different and mean very different things. Preparing a witness is the process of helping a witness to translate his or her knowledge to the unnatural, often counter-intuitive, language of question and answer one often gets from an interviewer or an attorney at trial. Coaching is straight-up telling a witness what to say and not say. Preparing is legal, coaching is not.
Then again, knowing a little bit about his attorney at the time (most definitely not a state appointed attorney) who knows. All kinds of things might have happened. His attorney initially and at the time of the first interview was Freeman Bosley, Jr., the former mayor of St Louis who's administration was rife with corruption scandals. After losing his bid for reelection he went back to his law practice where he more of less continued the same sort of stuff. The MO Supreme Court in September found that he had violated various attorney rules, including his conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and regarding diligence. He also violated the attorney/client trust account rules including commingling of funds, failure to keep proper records, not having funds in the trust account to cover charges (bouncing checks), and failure to deliver monies due clients. During the Supreme Court's Bar Disciplinary Panel investigation, he got all his ducks in a row and asked for probation, but his license to practice law was suspended indefinitely, though he can apply for reinstatement after 6 months.
Yeah, I know. That's one of the three times that I just got through telling you about. It was later in the same statement where they pressed him on that and he conceded that it was an assumption and not something he saw. And again, in his testimony before the grand jury, he never said Brown was shot in the back.
What I find interesting is that some people disagree and challenge me on things, trying ever so hard to prove me wrong, as if that even matters in what what could be an interesting discussion. Throughout this thread I've asked what I think are some interesting questions and raised some interesting points, and every one of them have been ignored, except for the ones they want to disagree with and challenge, in order to win some sort of invented argument. It's almost like, "Why are you even talking about this? The white cop did nothing wrong and was totally justified, as usual, the black guys are totally at fault, as usual, the justice system was near-perfect, blind and incredibly fair, as usual, and there's nothing at all odd or unusual about any of it. It's open and shut, cut and dry, black and white. End of discussion!"
paullud
Veteran Expediter
This from the guy that feels the need to correct things as trivial as someone calling Prime Time Hours, Prime Time News Hours? LOL Just a complete joke. What are these things that you are being corrected on that don't matter? You apparently started just making up reasons why things turned ugly during the protests and changed timelines to fit your stories.
What are all these interesting questions and points that were ignored?(Don't worry claiming that your points and questions are interesting doesn't seem the least bit conceded) Do you really feel the need to have people pat you on the back and say good job, that's a really interesting point? As for invented argument it sounds like you don't like being corrected on all the false claims that you made. I think there are a lot of tears in Turtle Town.
The only person that continues to interject race into this and is making decisions based on race is you. Race plays no part in how I viewed this issue because it just doesn't matter but you are just itching to get someone, anyone to say something a little off so that you can shriek racist. The idea for me is to remove race and look solely at what happened, the different versions, and the evidence. If you really think race is the factor in all my decision making on these events then why would I feel the black cop that shot the unarmed white guy in UT is right? Or what about the black cop that shot the unarmed white guy in AL? The cop knew for a fact that he was unarmed but shot and killed him when he felt threatened. I think the cop had a reason to shoot him. Obviously race isn't a determining factor for me like it is for you. If anyone has a different opinion than your's suddenly they must be prejudice or racist because you know all. "How dare they question MMMEEEEE?! I'M TURTLE DAM IT!"
Thank you for proving my point. For example, I never claimed my points and questions were interesting, I merely said that _I_ thought they were. And I did that specifically so that some goober didn't come along and accuse me of being conceded instead of trying to discuss the questions asked a d the points raised.
No I didn't think you're prejudiced because you have a different opinion than me.
No I didn't think you're prejudiced because you have a different opinion than me.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
What point? You still never mentioned any of these interesting things and yes it still sounds conceded to point out that you think the stuff you bring up is interesting.
That's exactly what you were pointing out. You had nothing to go off of other than pointing out that I thought the white cop was right and the black guy was wrong.
The point I made earlier. You know, the point about you'd rather challenge me to shut me up because you disagree with me, than to discuss things intelligently. I never corrected Prime Time News Hours, I merely said that I'd never heard of it. But you intentionally misconstrued that to try and make me look bad. Why?
What do you mean I never mentioned any of these interesting things? I mentioned every one of them at the time that I brought them up in the first place. I brought up points and asked some questions because I thought they were interesting. That doesn't mean anyone else has to think they're interesting. There's nothing conceited about that. But it also doesn't mean I should be ridiculed for bringing them up.
I never once said I thought you were prejudice because your opinion differed from mine. You asked, and I answered in #138 why I thought you were prejudiced. So you saying that I had nothing to go off on other than pointing out the white cop was right and the black guy was wrong is a lie, and you know it. And it's a lie told to continue to make me look bad in order to avoid intelligent discussion. You'd rather keep the discussion emotional.
That's fine, but at the risk of sounding conceited, that doesn't interest me.
Wrong again. Read p.18 of the grand jury testimony; it states plainly that Freeman Bosley is Johnson's attorney and that he's sitting outside the room. Whether or not he was "coached" or "prepped" is a matter of semantic nit-picking that at this point has no significance. Even the Feds now appear to agree that there was no legal justification to prosecute officer Wilson and the grand jury proceedings were handled properly. End of story.
Yeah, I read it, and I admit an error there in that I was wrong. I assumed it was just a mistake on how they referred to Bosley, since two days earlier on Sept 8th is when the Supreme Court ruled to suspend Bosley's license, but his license wasn't officially suspended until after his appeal was denied on Sept 30th. I assumed he was not there in a professional capacity but rather for moral support. So gloat all you want.
I also noticed on that same page that Johnson was told he could go out and consult with council, not bu the jury foreman as was previously stated, but rather by Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Sheila Whirley. I won't gloat.
It's not semantical nit-picking at all. The two terms mean different things. If you think they are interchangeable and thus used "coached" to mean "prepped" then that certainly explains why you think it has no significance. But I was responding to your use of the term "coached" as if you knew the difference.
When did the Feds make a comment indicating that they now appear to agree there was no legal justification for McCulloch to prosecute Wilson? Or that the Feds felt the grand jury proceedings were handled correctly? Or is this simply a conclusion drawn based on the fact that the DoJ decided not to file Civil Rights charges against Wilson? If so, that sounds like Fox News logical reasoning as much as anything. If the Feds now agree with the grand jury's decision that there was no legal justification to prosecute Wilson, they'd have said so outright. Same with how the grand jury proceeding was handled.
From nearly the very beginning hardly anyone expected the DoJ to file Civil Rights charges against Wilson. There was nothing in anyone's testimony (or even the crazy talk from people on the street to the media) that would support Wilson had violated Brown's Civil Rights. That whole DoJ investigation was pure political theater that should have been wrapped up in about 2 days.
But the fact that there was no Civil Rights violations has nothing to do with the grand jury's decision.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
You didn't just say that you never heard of the show. Great job trying to pretend that you are some sort of victim of bullying. I am challenging you on the BS facts that you made up and claimed that they were causes for the riots going bad. So now that someone corrected you multiple times it is suddenly a personal attack?
I asked you what was ignored and you didn't mention anything.
You made the claim that my prejudice is the reason I thought Wilson shouldn't have been indicted. So the only reason for my opinion being different than your's is your false assumption that being prejudice was the reason for it. Actually you never did mention anything specific for claiming that I was prejudice when asked. You made general comments like because of Katrina and couldn't get anymore specific apparently, sounds like more made up facts.
Really? It was pointed out that you were wrong multiple times and you started shrieking prejudice. The points I was bringing up were related directly to the issue but when it started going bad for you the direction of your focus changed to try and discredit the poster rather than the facts.
It doesn't sound conceited but it does sound incredibly hypocritical. Take a look at our exchange and you tell me who decided to make it about the poster and being emotional. Make sure you pay close attention to #112 and #124. It only interests you when it is working for you.
Last edited:
paullud
Veteran Expediter
It will bother me forever that I got that wrong.
Words are fun. When I was about eight years old, my mother gave me a dictionary as a Christmas present. Good grief! I wanted a baseball glove or a BB gun or a Swiss Army knife. Nope, I got a big, boring book with no pictures. Every year, my siblings and I received books from our mother. My Dad, on the other hand, spoiled us with ponies, bicycles, real firearms. Guess which parent had the most impact.
I grew up watching my Mom work the NYT's crossword puzzle in ink without correction. She was a city girl with a good Catholic education who married young to a US Army Air Corps aviator. She never got over the culture shock of moving to Central Appalachia. She must have really loved my Dad.
What show? I said, as you quoted, that "I'm aware of Prime Time Hours, but I never knew there was such a thing as Prime Time News Hours."
It's not a correction of any kind. It's a simple statement of fact, that I really and truly never have heard of Prime Time News Hours. It's a very simple statement using relatively short words, and it's not one easily open to interpretation. Why you feel the need to deem it has some ulterior deep, hidden meaning, I'm not sure, other than you did so as a personal attack.
The BS facts that you're so fixated on weren't the causes for the riots going bad. They were, at most, small contributors. The reason the riots went bad is extreme frustration with a systemic injustice, which I stated very early on in this thread.
There is no need to restate what has already been restated. It's all right there to be read. Go read what I posted, and then notice in the replies what all was ignored as if I had never posted it.
Correct.
That's your own false conclusion. That's not the only reason for your opinion being different than mine. You stated "If anyone has a different opinion than your's suddenly they must be prejudice or racist because you know all." That's ridiculous statement, to which I replied with "No I didn't think you're prejudiced because you have a different opinion than me."
I don't think you're prejudiced because you have a different opinion than me, I think you're prejudiced because you're prejudiced. I'm entitled to my opinion about you just as you're entitled to your opinion about me.
Actually actually I did mention specifics, twice, which you are still continuing to ignore and assert were never mentioned.
Not really. What you've done multiple times is claim I'm wrong. That doesn't make it so. For example, you LOL'd with glee in proving wrong my statements about McCulloch not prosecuting cops for specifically stated offenses, except all you did was misread or misinterpret (giving you the benefit of the doubt) what I wrote and then disproved your misinterpretation of what I said. That's not really the same as proving me wrong.
There is nothing in either of those posts that come from an emotional platform or is about the poster. It may have been emotional for you, but it certainly wasn't for me.
Instead of continuing to rehash what's already been said, let me try this. Of the 9 white and 3 black grand jurors, aren't you interested in finding out how each of them voted?
paullud
Veteran Expediter
I'm sure you'll want to counter this with some pithy dismissive, but your answer to that question certainly clarifies your participation in this thread. When faced with the chance to set the personal stuff aside, you'd rather not participate.
ok