Grand Jury Probably Did Not Get A Lot Of The Evidence. A Lot Of It Was Scrubbed Out.

[TheMastersNemesis]

I am sure the most crucial convicting evidence was scrubbed out by the police department. There was a lot of time where they could manipulate, distort and disappear the real facts that would have led to an indictment. It was a very good "white" wash. And it is obvious that the Ferguson PD is a racist and bigoted department. And the entire system there is corrupt.

Someone like Kennedy would have taken the entire department down and fired everyone. The DOJ would just about take over.

It is obvious we have a problem with trigger happy police and they are not all in Ferguson.

[shenmue]

1. I'm sure

[Dreamer Tatum]

2. All of that is as plain as the noses on our faces.

Obvious, all of it. Utterly.

[Beausoir]

3. That's exactly OPPOSITE of what the Brown family is claiming.

They are claiming that TOO much information was included.

Replay ANY interview with their attorney and you will tumble to the same conclusion.

The Brown family claims that because the D.A. included all information, he never really wanted to charge the cop with anything.

If you are going to be hysterical...at least get your facts right.

[WinkyDink]

16. 1. YOU are clearly the "hysterical" one, if you think that is the tone of the OP. 2. The Brown

family's opinions or claims do not constitute the final arbiter, nor do they preclude another from having a differing, and perhaps more accurate, opinion.

3. You offer no pertinent "facts," let alone any that the OP ought "get...right."

[TDale313]

4. It sounds like the issue may have been the opposite.

The prosecutor apparently gave them *everything*. With no guidance or suggestion on how they should find. A big document dump, with sometimes contradictory and confusing info and basically just saying "Here, figure it out" with the predictable result that they decided against charging. This is not apparently how it's usually done.

[Nye Bevan]

7. If I was on a grand jury, I would want to see all of the evidence, without any "guidance"

from the prosecutor. I am quite capable of making up my own mind.

[TDale313]

10. It's my understanding that most of the time

Prosecutors make their best case to the Grand Jury. Often these aren't legal experts, and might need some clarifying. This is not the trial, it's only a finding of "is there enough evidence to charge him" Very different. I get your point, but it also sounds like this was very unusual and may have had the effect of helping see that there wasn't an indictment without the DA taking the heat for deciding on his own not to charge.

[maced666]

5. You are sure? Well, I'm convinced.

[WinkyDink]

17. It's called an idiom, a figure of speech.

[madville]

6. Them actually getting all the evidence was the problem

When the DA wants an indictment
He cherry picks the evidence and only presents enough to secure the indictment. Dumping all the evidence on them could only lead to the outcome we got today.

With this amount of contradictory evidence a conviction at a trial would be impossible but there still should have been a real trial.

[Nye Bevan]

9. That's a confusing post.

Are you claiming that the grand jury got "all" of the evidence, or that they got "cherry picked" evidence? Because it's one or the other.

[madville]

13. They got all the evidence

And it led to no indictment. If the DA had wanted to they could have withheld anything they wanted and guaranteed an indictment but that's not the outcome they wanted.

[Nye Bevan]

14. Ah, so you are saying that the DA *should* have cherry-picked the evidence.

Reviewed it in advance and blocked anything exculpatory from the jury.

[gollygee]

18. That's what they usually do

They usually present their best case. They are not required to give all evidence, and the job of the grand jury isn't to try the case so the grand jury doesn't need all evidence. If the prosecutor wants an indictment, there almost always is one.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. I don't know that was the case ...

this is a prosecutorial failure ... plain and simple.

In most cases, the Prosecutor's job is to make/present the STATE'S case FOR prosecution, not an impartial/balanced case.

I wonder how many folks, Black and white, would be walking around free, today, if prosecutors just presented all the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may.

[lovemydog]

15. I agree - prosecutorial failure.

In that guy's rather odd press conference, he kept talking about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. While that may be true, I wonder if he brings that up at every grand jury? I kind of doubt it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Yes, that is/was "curious" ...

especially, in light of the fact that most indictments are secured on the weight of eye witness testimony.

But I'm pretty certain it was brought up before THIS grand jury ... more than a few times.

[lovemydog]

20. Yup - considering how many times he brought it up at the press conference,

I'd guess he brought it up ad nauseum during the proceedings.

[Triana]

11. Lots of stuff being uploaded here...

...http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson-project/evidence.html

[freshwest]

12. They had months to destroy evidence and come with a story. I've only gleaned one note by a juror.

I don't know how much longer it is going to take the website releasing it to catch up with the demand for files. Gawker is snagging and publishing as they get them and I've only seen one piece so far.

And it's a fragment of a note, not the whole thing. But the PD had a long time to make a mess of this.

What's the reaction of your local libertarianistas there? Or have you given up the utter torture of listening to RWNJs?