Most of the statements put out there are hearsay since they didnt actually witness the event. I understand the definition.

So out of the 60 "witnesses" presented to the grand jury, "Most" of them didn't actually see the event, but the prosecutor presented them to the grand jury anyway?

A pair of NY Times journalists printed a story that included Wilson's new home address. In less than two hours, several blogs had posted the home address of the journalists. Somebody needs to keep this going by posting the home addresses of the bloggers who posted the home addresses of the journalists who posted Wilson's home address.

Yep, the same way you determined it was legitimate. The outlier of native americans is a huge point to the issues with the study.

What outlier? Native American populations have well-documented struggles with alcohol and drug abuse, especially on reservations. That would also explain incarceration/prosecution differences if it's mainly handled (or ignored) by reservation police.

A pair of NY Times journalists printed a story that included Wilson's new home address. In less than two hours, several blogs had posted the home address of the journalists. Somebody needs to keep this going by posting the home addresses of the bloggers who posted the home addresses of the journalists who posted Wilson's home address.

Yeah, none of that should be happening and on that I'll totally agree. Who from the NY Times actually did that?

A pair of NY Times journalists printed a story that included Wilson's new home address. In less than two hours, several blogs had posted the home address of the journalists. Somebody needs to keep this going by posting the home addresses of the bloggers who posted the home addresses of the journalists who posted Wilson's home address.

that sounds pretty s***ty

No it isn't in the least.

 

There needs to be some actual filtering done of the evidence. The police officer's statements of him turning into the hulk would be demolished by an actual cross examination. There needed to be an actual investigation by a qualified person of which witness accounts actually hold up, which don't, and how do those fit with the physical evidence at the scene.

 

It could be entirely possible that when you line up the witnesses with the actual physical evidence, a group of them all fall out immediately due to not having been able to see what they claimed to see and a much clearer story emerges. A wise man once said "a courtroom is a crucible, in it we burn away irrelevancy until we are left with a purer product, the truth".

 

Instead, 60 different witnesses were presented to people with no filter and they had to figure out how to process them, with no one other than themselves to ask questions and no experts brought in to do things like give counterpoints to presented physical evidence.

 

This is why we have an adversarial system, so that you don't end up with the person who is supposed to be prosecuting a shooter defending that shooter in a press conference while saying "and this is when the final 10 shots were fired".

 

You put way too much stock in cross examination. Did you see Wilson's interview with George Steffonalapeoperopoligas? He comes off incredibly well. You're not going to phase him.

So out of the 60 "witnesses" presented to the grand jury, "Most" of them didn't actually see the event, but the prosecutor presented them to the grand jury anyway?

 

Several people who initially claimed to be eyewitnesses to the event did not admit until actually testifying to the grand jury under oath that they were not actually eyewitnesses but passing along what friends who had claimed to be eyewitnesses had told them.

 

This was cited by the prosecuting attorney as one of the main factors in the decision since these were mostly the witnesses claiming he was shot in the back and/or had his hands up when shot.

Most of the statements put out there are hearsay since they didnt actually witness the event. I understand the definition.

Most isn't all, and there's multiple people who actually witnesses the event who present a different story than Wilson. Which witnesses are just giving hearsay testimony, and why were they even allowed to give it?

You really need to research the definition of Hearsay. A witness statement is by definition not "hearsay". The way you just used it, the officer's testimony is "hearsay".

 

He's probably referring to the witnesses who are relying on what they heard someone else say. Which is hearsay.

Several people who initially claimed to be eyewitnesses to the event did not admit until actually testifying to the grand jury under oath that they were not actually eyewitnesses but passing along what friends who had claimed to be eyewitnesses had told them.

 

This was cited by the prosecuting attorney as one of the main factors in the decision since these were mostly the witnesses claiming he was shot in the back and/or had his hands up when shot.

So you actually wrote that and want to tell me that the prosecutor did an effective job and did not prejudice the jury by presenting faulty witnesses? Good lord.

He's probably referring to the witnesses who are relying on what they heard someone else say. Which is hearsay.

Isn't that normally not allowed in a regular trial? Is it allowed in a grand jury?

So out of the 60 "witnesses" presented to the grand jury, "Most" of them didn't actually see the event, but the prosecutor presented them to the grand jury anyway?

 

Another indication that he wanted all potential facts out there for the grand jury to decide.

Another indication that he wanted all potential facts out there for the grand jury to decide.

With no evaluation of any of them, even before their presentations apparently, which is about as poor of a job of a prosecutor doing as I could ever imagine.

Another indication that he wanted all potential facts out there for the grand jury to decide.

Or another indication that he wanted to bury a grand jury in as much s*** as possible with no help in sorting it out or challenging any particular pieces of evidence so they'd throw their hands up.

Yeah, none of that should be happening and on that I'll totally agree. Who from the NY Times actually did that?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/news/ferguson/2014/...guson-shooting/

 

Officer Wilson and Officer Spradling own a home together on Manda Lane in Crestwood, Mo., a St. Louis suburb about a half-hour drive from Ferguson.

Isn't that normally not allowed in a regular trial? Is it allowed in a grand jury?

 

Definitely not at trial (at least not as proof that he did surrender). My understanding is that a grand jury usually follows the same rules of evidence, but not as stringent. I bet it's allowed. Again, it's more fact based. Witness 1, what did you see/hear.

http://www.nytimes.com/news/ferguson/2014/...guson-shooting/

also this:

 

Editors' Note: November 25, 2014

An earlier version of this post included a photograph that contained information that should not have been made public. The image has been removed.

 

That seems pretty irresponsible.

Or another indication that he wanted to bury a grand jury in as much s*** as possible with no help in sorting it out or challenging any particular pieces of evidence so they'd throw their hands up.

 

Ah yes, the old "the jury is full of a bunch of morons!!!! How can we expect them to come to the right decision that I want!" argument.

With no evaluation of any of them, even before their presentations apparently, which is about as poor of a job of a prosecutor doing as I could ever imagine.

 

God Balta, you are so out of your element on this one. Seriously. You're arguing against yourself here. You want a pro-prosecutor to exclude things like hearsay evidence that SUPPORTS the charges you wanted him to bring.

Edited November 26, 201411 yr by Jenksismybitch

So you actually wrote that and want to tell me that the prosecutor did an effective job and did not prejudice the jury by presenting faulty witnesses? Good lord.

 

How does the prosecutor know these are faulty witnesses? They claim to be witnesses, and the prosecutor would get hammered if he didn't present them.

Definitely not at trial (at least not as proof that he did surrender). My understanding is that a grand jury usually follows the same rules of evidence, but not as stringent. I bet it's allowed. Again, it's more fact based. Witness 1, what did you see/hear.

"I heard my friend say that she saw" should never have been presented to the GJ if it in fact was. That's intentionally sloppy work by the prosecutors to even bring these people in without screening them first.

God Balta, you are so out of your element on this one. Seriously. You're arguing against yourself here. You want a pro-prosecutor to exclude things like hearsay evidence that SUPPORTS the charges you wanted him to bring.

You don't think that calling witnesses and asking if they previously lied is prejudicial?

also this:

 

Editors' Note: November 25, 2014

An earlier version of this post included a photograph that contained information that should not have been made public. The image has been removed.

 

That seems pretty irresponsible.

 

The photograph was of their marriage license and that was removed, but their address is still in the story as of two minutes ago.

How does the prosecutor know these are faulty witnesses? They claim to be witnesses, and the prosecutor would get hammered if he didn't present them.

 

 

"I heard my friend say that she saw" should never have been presented to the GJ if it in fact was. That's intentionally sloppy work by the prosecutors to even bring these people in without screening them first.

 

God Balta, you are so out of your element on this one. Seriously.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys usually have a pretty solid idea of what someone is going to say during testimony, don't they? Shouldn't a competent prosecutor ask a potential witness if they actually were a witness before they're seated in front of the grand jury?

 

Can people perjure themselves in GJ testimony or is none of it sworn?