Wednesday, December 17, 2014

#BillCosby is a media enabled Weapon of Mass Distraction from #SandyMcElroy

About that #FergusonGrandJury that refused to indict #DarrenWilson in the shooting death of #MikeBrown...

You won't see this on TeeVee, or read about it in the mainstream media because they are too busy talking about ‪#‎BillCosby,‬ but The Smoking Gun exposed  ‪#‎Ferguson‬ "lying" witness number 40 Sandy McElroy as a racist lying liar.
 DECEMBER 15--The grand jury witness who testified that she saw Michael Brown pummel a cop before charging at him “like a football player, head down,” is a troubled, bipolar Missouri woman with a criminal past who has a history of making racist remarks and once insinuated herself into another high-profile St. Louis criminal case with claims that police eventually dismissed as a “complete fabrication,” The Smoking Gun has learned.
There's more:
 You must understand, then, that Sandy McElroy, whose testimony matches that of Darren Wilson's better than any witness who testified, was only called to the grand jury, not once, but twice, and allowed to present concocted physical evidence at that, because she was a neutron bomb for this case. Not ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE proving that she was there could be found and scores of evidence that she made the entire thing up was presented weeks before she was ever allowed to testify before the grand jury, but it was all deliberately ignored

Oops, more lying liars and the lying liars who tell them
But Maddow wasn’t the last MSNBC host to poke holes in the grand jury’s work that day. Lawrence O’Donnell followed up by poking holes in the testimony of the only witness McCulloch specifically quoted in his press conference, imbued with all the trust he scornfully denied to everyone else.
“There is no real reason to believe officer wilson’s story that Michael Brown was charging at him, but even if you do believe it, there is certainly no reason to believe that Officer Wilson could not have easily avoided being tackled by someone who’s been hit by four of his bullets,” O’Donnell pointed out—which, again, is precisely the sort of thing that a prosecutor’s cross-examination should have made obvious. “You don’t have to be an NFL running back to avoid that tackle.” But then O’Donnell moved on to his main point—was there any credible evidence supporting Wilson’s claim of this most improbable, suicidal charge? “That is one of the most important questions in this case,” he said, and then played a clip from McCulloch’s press conference, “One described his movement toward Officer Wilson as ‘a full charge.’”
The Truth Matters

It ought to be against the law to use the public airways to lie to the public.



Brian said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Redeye said...

I am deleting your previous comment because you did not cite your source.

Brian said...


Witness admits false statements
Witness 35 said Brown was "on his knees" when Wilson shot him in the head.
Under questioning, however, his testimony fell apart.
"What you are saying you saw isn't forensically possible based on the evidence," a prosecutor said.
The witness acknowledged making up testimony.
"Are you telling us that the only thing that's true about all of your statements before this is that you saw that police officer shoot him at point blank range?" a grand juror asked
"Yes," he answered.

Brian said...

CNN: 'Did you see this at all?'
Prosecutors called Witness 22 to explain that she lied to investigators and never witnessed the incident.
"You gave two statements, were both of those statements true?" a prosecutor asked.
"No," she answered. "I just felt like I want to be part of something ... I didn't see what I told the FBI what (sic) I saw."
She said she was actually passing along what her boyfriend told her he saw.
Prosecutors also played the grand jury a 10-minute police interview with a man who claimed to have witnessed the shooting. Then they played a phone call in which the man admitted that he actually had not seen the incident.
Another witness insisted another officer was with Wilson at the time of the shooting. (By all other accounts, Wilson was the only officer present when he shot Brown).
This witness described having a clear view of what transpired despite there being a building between the witness' location and where the incident took place.
"We all know people can't see around corners, right?" the prosecutor asked.

Brian said...


Another witness -- number 37 -- testified to seeing events that are hard to believe. He said that during a confrontation at Wilson's vehicle, Wilson shot Brown point blank in the chest -- but that Brown did not fall over and was not clearly bleeding as he ran away.
The witness also gave differing accounts as to how many shots were fired.
"You told three different stories in the time we've been here today. So I want to know which one is really your memory or did you see this at all?" a prosecutor asked.
Witness 37 posed an intriguing question to the prosecutors.
"If none of my stuff is making any sense, like why do y'all keep contacting me?" the witness asked.

Brian said...

We have at least 5 more witness (22,35,37, and two unnumbered) that lied to investigators. Also, the entire Slate article ( that you linked to is about how Witness 40 was discredited in front of the grand jury. And the Slate article details how the grand jury knew she was a liar and a racist.

Redeye said...

And your point is what exactly?

Upset Resident said...

I believe that he is saying for every Sandy there are NUMEROUS "John Does" who say he was shot in the back ETC ETC ETC but once confronted with forensic evidence they recanted their 'lies" EC ETC ETC

Redeye said...

And what does that have to do with the fact Sandra McElroy lied to the grand jury and federal investigators?

Upset Resident said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brian said...

One of the points was that Witness 40 was discredited in front of the grand jury as was other witnesses that were lying. The grand jury knew she was a liar as they also knew that 22,35, and 37 among others were also liars.

I am curious as to which witnesses match these media reports. Following text is from Wikipedia with the source article listed above the quote.

On October 16, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published an interview with a black Canfield resident who testified before the grand jury. The man, who did not want his name released, said he saw the entire event. Wilson drove past Johnson and Brown and then backed up again. A scuffle ensued in the police vehicle and Wilson's hat flew off. There was a gunshot from the vehicle, and then Brown ran down the street followed by Wilson. Wilson aimed his gun at Brown and repeatedly yelled "Stop", but did not fire until Brown turned around and stepped toward Wilson. At that point Wilson fired three shots. Brown staggered toward Wilson from 20 feet away with his hands out to his sides, when Wilson fired again. The witness said that Brown was already falling as the last shots were fired and that, in his opinion, the final shots were murder.

According to several people close to the grand jury investigation, seven or eight witnesses have given testimony consistent with Wilson's account. Details of the testimony were not reported. Speaking on condition of anonymity to The Washington Post, the sources said that the witnesses are all African American, and that they have not spoken publicly out of fear for their safety.

Redeye said...

Key Words: "According to several people close to the grand jury investigation, seven or eight witnesses have given testimony consistent with Wilson's account."

Brian said...

Here some key words for you


Another witness had told the FBI that Wilson shot Brown in the back and then "stood over him and finished him off." But in his grand jury testimony, this witness acknowledged that he had not seen that part of the shooting, and that what he told the FBI was "based on me being where I'm from, and that can be the only assumption that I have."

The witness, who lives in the predominantly black neighborhood where Brown was killed, also acknowledged that he changed his story to fit details of the autopsy that he had learned about on TV.

"So it was after you learned that the things you said you saw couldn't have happened that way, then you changed your story about what you seen?" a prosecutor asserted.

"Yeah, to coincide with what really happened," the witness replied.

Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown's, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown "on his knees with his hands in the air." He added: "I seen him shoot him in the head."

But when later pressed by the investigator, the friend said he had not seen the actual shooting because he was walking down the stairs at the time and instead had heard details from someone in the apartment complex.

"What you are saying you saw isn't forensically possible based on the evidence," the investigator told the friend.

Shortly after that, the friend asked if he could leave.

"I ain't feeling comfortable," he said.

Redeye said...

First of all, anonymous sources close to the investigations are not supposed to be leaking information to the media. The grand jury is secret, at least it's supposed to be.

Secondly, there were two witnesses who said #MichaelBrown didn't have hands up surrendering. One was not actually there. The other was #DarrenWilson.

Brian said...

There have been more than two witnesses who said Mike Brown didn't have his hands up surrendering.

Witness 10:
“He did turn. He did some sort of body gesture. I’m not sure what it was, but I know it was a body gesture, and I could say for sure, he never put his hands up after he did his body gesture, he ran towards the officer full charge.”

There are 60 witnesses, 5000 pages of testimony. Until I see somebody do a summary about what each and every one of those witnesses testify about, I am not going to trust somebody saying "we only have this many saying this".

Redeye said...

Who says there have been more than two witnesses that said Mike Brown didn't have his hands up? Let me guess, anonymous sources close to the grand jury, right? Funny how you won't trust somebody saying we only have this many saying this" but you trust "anyone who says Mike Brown didn't have his hand up, even someone who wasn't even there.... BTW, Lawrence O'Donnell destroyed witness #10. If you watched anything other than Fox News you would know.

Brian said...

I don't watch fox news, please stop making assumption about me, and that YouTube video doesn't prove that Lawrence O'Donnell destroyed witness #10, only that somebody thinks he did. When asked how far away something is, how accurate would you be at first guess?

I have yet to hear of a numbered witness whose testimony hasn't been destroyed by somebody irregardless of which side their testimony supports.

How many witnesses said Mike Brown had his hands up that haven't been destroyed?

Redeye said...

There were two witnesses that said Mike Brown didn't have his hands up. One was not even there and the other one is Darren Wilson.

Redeye said...

Actually the Ferguson Grand Jury was a farce and a fraud.

In intentionally presenting false testimony to the grand jury, McCulloch may have committed a serious ethical breach. Under the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, lawyers are prohibited from offering “evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.”

"McCulloch justified his actions by asserting that the grand jury gave no credence at all to McElroy’s testimony. But this is speculation. Under Missouri law, the grand jury deliberations are secret and McCulloch is not allowed to be present."

Brian said...

With the litany of witnesses on both sides that were lying, there is no way for a jury to make a decision based on witness testimony.

A new prosecutor might be able to bring charges, but will he/she be able to find an impartial jury in St. Louis County? In the state of Missouri? In the United States?

What would the trial cost? Would the new prosecutor even bring charges? Would we then demand a new prosecutor that would bring charges? When does it go from a hunt for justice to a hunt for vengeance?

You're focusing on 40, but if 40 was to be brought up on perjury, then 22, 35, 41 among others would also have to be brought up on perjury. They admitted to falsifying their testimony.

Redeye said...

Yep. I'm focusing on 40.

"Ferguson prosecutor Bob McCulloch admitted that he presented evidence he knew to be false to the grand jury considering charges against Darren Wilson. In an interview with radio station KTRS on Friday, McCulloch said that he decided to present witnesses that were “clearly not telling the truth” to the grand jury. Specifically, McCulloch acknowledged he permitted a woman who “clearly wasn’t present when this occurred” to testify as an eyewitness to the grand jury for several hours. The woman, Sandra McElroy, testified that Michael Brown charged at Wilson “like a football player, head down,” supporting Wilson’s claim that he killed Brown in self-defense.

McElroy, according to a detailed investigation by The Smoking Gun, suffers from bipolar disorder but is not receiving treatment and has a history of making racist remarks. In a journal entry, McElroy wrote that she was visiting Ferguson on the day of Michael Brown’s death because she wanted to “stop calling Blacks N****** and Start calling them people.” McElroy also has had trouble with her memory since being thrown through a windshield in a 2001 auto accident. "

Redeye said...

Actually we can't believe anything presented to the grand jury."The recent admission that the prosecution knowingly presented false testimony to the grand jury builds on a pattern of conduct benefiting Wilson’s defense that could justify the appointment of a new prosecutor. This included: vouching for police conduct to the grand jurors, gentle questioning of Wilson himself and aggressive questioning of any witness adverse to Wilson’s defense."

Brian said...

The more I read about the grand jury, the more I believe that there was not a solid case against Darren Wilson and Bob McCulloch knew that but was being pushed to file charges due to social pressure and that he choose to take it to a grand jury and present the grand jury with all the evidence he had and let the grand jury make the decision on what charges should be filed.

McCulloch made the "unusual" (his spokesman's words) decision not to ask the grand jury to endorse a specific charge but left it up to the grand jury to decide what charges should be file. The grand jury could have chose to file murder charges if they wish, they could have filed manslaughter, they could have filed anything. They didn't. They knew everything and they could not find enough evidence to file any charges.

McCulloch didn't even present the case to the grand jury. He had two assistant prosecutors present the case.

Redeye said...

The "more I read about the grand jury", the more I'm convinced it was a secret trial masquerading as a grand jury. The purpose of the grand jury is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to decide whether there is probable cause to prosecute someone for a felony crime. The grand jury operates in secrecy and the normal rules of evidence do not apply. The prosecutor runs the proceedings and no judge is present.

Brian said...

Yes, and this grand jury had free reign to charge Darren Wilson with any charges that 9 of the 12 could agree on that he should be charged with. And they came back with no charges.

And what happens if a new prosecutor does bring charges? If 9 of 12 could not determine whether or not charges should be brought, how are 12 of 12 going to convict on those charges? We saw that all the witnesses that would be used to convict Darren Wilson have issues that will destroy their testimony, just as most of the witness that would be used to clear Darren Wilson would have their testimony destroyed (Haven't seen anything that would destroy witnesses 14's and 48's testimony).

Redeye said...

"This grand jury had free reign" and therein lies the problem. I bet if Micheal Brown had shot and killed an unarmed Darren Wilson the grand jury would have indicted him faster than a New York minute.

Brian said...

You speculation that if an armed Michael Brown had shot an unarmed Darren Wilson, that the grand jury would have indicted him depends on the circumstances.

If Michael Brown as an armed black police officer had shot Darren Wilson, an unarmed white youth with the same circumstances and evidence, than, I would bet that Michael Brown would not be indicted.

Redeye said...

If Michael Brown as an armed black police officer had shot Darren Wilson, an unarmed white youth multiple times, in the middle of the street in broad daylight like an animal, I would bet that Michael Brown would be indicted. As he should have been.

Brian said...

If that was true, why was Bron Cruz, a "non-white" police officer not indicted for shooting Dillon Taylor, an unarmed 20 year old white youth, for not responding to police commands while wearing headphones.

Brian said...

Why do you keep deleting comments that are not violating any of your rules?

Responding to your post is not interfering with the natural progress of the thread. A response is in fact part of the natural progress of the threat.

I am not harassing, defaming, or disparaging you or any other commentators.

I am not trolling or flaming.

I am not posting inflammoatory, obscene material, advertisements, or spam links.

Brian said...

I would bet that if Michael Brown was an armed police officer shooting an unarmed Darren Wilson and all the other circumstances of this case remained the same, Michael Brown would not have been indicted.