WITNESS TEN WAS THE LENGTH OF A FOOTBALL FIELD AWAY...

IF AN OFFICIAL STANDING UNDER THIS UPRIGHT
CALLED A HOLDING PENALTY
ON A PLAYER
STANDING UNDER THE UPRIGHT AT THE OTHER END OF THE FILED,
MIGHT A COACH CHALLENGE THE CALL?????

I'll be on a break again for about ten days.  I want to leave you with this comment...



Witness 10's testimony at the Ferguson grand jury (the key testimony according to the prosecutor and the only one besides Darren Wilson he mentioned in his press conference) was the only one who matched Wilson's narrative from start to finish, especially Wilson's claim that Brown bull rushed him (while his body was full of multiple bullets). When Witness 10 was first interviewed by investigators he said he was 100 yards way from the scene. But by the time he testified before the grand jury, his story had now changed. He now claimed he was 50 to 75 yards away. This witness also said he saw Mike Brown make some sort of bodily movement but he was not sure what it was. He said he was not sure three times about that at the GJ. He added, thought, amazingly, that he knew Brown was not surrendering. McCulloch found his testimony more compelling than unchanged testimony from witnesses who were 20 ft and 20 yards away, who saw Brown stumbling forward, reeling from multiple gun shot wounds. We have been given no further information on this witness but that he did not wear glasses. We don't know if he is twelve years old or eighty years old, if he ever had his eyes examined, if he needed glasses, if he was on drugs or in trouble with the law. The prosecutor didn't ask and we don't know. We do know he changed his testimony. My question, would we trust an official standing in one end zone to call a holding penalty in the other end zone, seriously. Would we trust an official standing even on the fifty to seventy-five yards away to make that call? Hell no. This is the KEY witness according to the asshole prosecutor. Give me a break.

The following is from Daily Kos..

THE WEAKNESS OF WITNESS #10 IN THE DARREN

 WILSON CASE

Frank Vyan Walton

Last night, the second night following the Non-dictment of Officer Darren Wilson in his fatal shooting of a unarmed teenager Michael Brown, Lawrence O'Donnell went through chapter and verse the various problems with the one witness quoted by "Prosecutor" Bob McCullough as verifying Wilson's claim that the reason he shot Brown to death was because he was running at him in a "Full Charge".

O'Donnell points out here that this witness initially claimed to be 100 yards from the conflict but then later - in a manner exactly like the complaint McCullough used against other witnesses - changed his story to claim that he was on 50-75 yards away.

Just as we should question the testimony of Witness 40 who also claimed that Brown "Charged" even though her own Journal notes indicate she had a problem with not habituallycalling black people "Niggers" - shouldn't we also question the veracity of a witness who was not only much farther away than many other witnesses who claimed the exact opposite, but then can't keep his (or her) story straight on just how far away from the conflict they really were?

When we remember the virtual pummeling that Rachel Jeantel went though when she testified that George Zimmerman was the person to first touch and/or hit Trayvon Martin before eventually killing him after an intense struggle.

I'm also including video from the previous night of O'Donnell's show which highlight many of the irregularities and strangeness of how this "Prosecutor" approached this case.   As Legal Analyst Lisa Bloom states, this process was "Rigged".

Originally in his police interview just 2 days after the shooting Witness #10 claimed that Micheal Brown and his friend were walking on the sidewalk.  Many reports show that this isn't true and they were actually walking in the middle of the street, which is exactly why Officer Wilson first confronted them.  Later with the Grand Jury Witness #10 then changes his testimony to claim that Michael Brown and his companion were walking "next to the curb".

There are multiple points where this witness states "I can't be sure", "I don't know", yet this is the one witness - the only witness - that "Prosecutor" McCullough bothered to quote during his press conference to explain away the lack of an indictment of Officer Darren Wilson?

There are multiple witnesses who dispute the claims made by Wilson and Witness #10 in this case.  Normally the veracity of Wilson and this witness or other witnesses would be challenged by a vigorous Prosecutor, they would have to stand up to scrutiny  - but there was no scrutiny of Wilson's claims, there was no cross examination of his testimony or of this witnesses testimony.

So how exactly are we supposed to take their word for it instead of the word of those who were much closer to the event and/or have nothing personally gain or lose by simply telling what they saw?

Is it possible that this witness and Officer Wilson are the correct ones in this situation and every other witness - even those who were only a few feet away from the incident - are all wrong?

Maybe. Possibly. But not likely.

Common sense and logic says that the preponderance of facts says that those who stated that after running away Michael Brown stopped and put his hand up to surrender are probably not wrong. The fact is that this person is a Defense Witness and although they possibly should have had a chance to bring forth their view in a full trial where that could be challenged and verified, just as Rachel was challenged, a Defense witness really doesn't belong in the middle of a Grand Jury where the initial question is "Is there enough evidence to go to trial"?

Yes, there was enough to go to trial. Could Wilson have been acquitted in that trial? Maybe, under the current Missouri law which allows Police Officers to use deadly force whenever they "feel threatened" rather than when they have "probable cause", but rather than have the debate and argument we have this: a witness who changed their story and were further away than other witnesses who didn't being given more credence simply because that's who the "prosecutor" wanted the Grand Jury to believe, rather than the truth.

And this is why people were out protesting in the streets last night, tonight and probably tomorrow night - Justice was not served here.

Vyan

ORIGINALLY POSTED TO VYAN ON WED NOV 26, 2014 AT 11:42 AM PST.

ALSO REPUBLISHED BY BLACK KOS COMMUNITY.