The grand jury in the case of Michael Brown's shooting didn't just face an onslaught of witnesses with conflicting memories of what happened the day white police officer Darren Wilson killed Brown, an unarmed black teenager. It also heard from witnesses who couldn't be believed at all.
Some admitted lying. Others changed their stories under questioning. Prosecutors were so skeptical of one woman's account that they asked whether she might have dreamed about seeing the confrontation in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 9. Most of the dozens of witnesses who testified likely did their best to describe what they saw, but a review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents shows that untrustworthy testimony came from some witnesses on both sides. What is unusual in the Ferguson case is that prosecutors chose to call so many witnesses, including some whose credibility they doubted. Analysts differ over why prosecutors called witnesses with questionable credibility. Some say the prosecution wanted to present a jumbled case, to help Wilson. Others say the intense scrutiny and likelihood of a separate federal probe make it common in some places to toss anything and everything at a grand jury probing a controversial police killing -- even witnesses who prosecutors believe aren't likely to tell the truth.
This is interesting because it completely changed the case now that he witnesses admit to their wrong doings. I wonder how this affects the case and the crime in itself. This can link back to possible events that occurred during the civil war where southerners lied to their slaves once they were freed. Liars in politics change the outcome of everything.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justice/ferguson-witnesses-credibility/index.html?c=justice&page=6
No comments:
Post a Comment