lod01
Footballguy
Are you insane? So you randomly pick a witness and go with whatever he says?Maybe. But none of that should be happening before a grand jury. There shouldn't be any cross-examination. If there is at least one witness to testify that Brown surrendered, that should be enough. In fact, there shouldn't really be ANY contradictory witnesses appearing at all.You get these clowns in a controlled environment and grill them as to what really happened and there is no way their stories can sync up. They are either forced to tell the real story or they are discarded when their stories don't add up. The riots will be instantaneous upon announcement of the finding. Then once they witness accounts are released in the findings, the rioters will again look around wanting someone else to rebuild what they destroyed. And of course, don't forget the screams of a cover up and witless intimidation. Those will be entertaining.Am I musremembering, or wasn't there a recent leak that witnesses only told this to media and police on the scene? That no one testified this to the grand jury?To get an indictment:
Evidence that Wilson shot Brown, that the fatal shots were of some reasonable distance, plus witness testimony that Brown was surrendering.
As Sinn Fein pointed out: one forensics guy to state that Wilson fired his gun at a distance, one police officer to state that Michael Brown was shot, and one witness to state that Brown raised his hands and surrendered. That's it. Should take a couple of hours, and Wilson should be indicted. You don't need all of these other witnesses. You don't need to hear Wilson's story. You don't need to waste time on any of that, it will all come out at trial. The Grand Jury should have met on this for a half a day and then indicted Wilson. I don't understand why it's taken so long, and I don't understand why they feel the need to hear ALL of the evidence.
That's basically what you are saying. You absolutely interview everyone to get a correct story.
Last edited by a moderator:
:(