St.Louis County prosecutor should be investigated for conspiracy to suborn perjury

December 17, 2014

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Good afternoon:

Missouri Governor Nixon should appoint a special prosecutor to to investigate St.Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch and his two assistant prosecutors for engaging in a conspiracy to suborn perjury in the Michael Brown shooting case and Darren Wilson should be charged with murder for killing Michael Brown.

Witness 40, whom we now know to be Sandra McElroy, was the only grand jury witness who corroborated Darren Wilson’s claim that Michael Brown grunted, lowered his head and bull-rushed him leaving him no alternative except to shoot him to death. Her testimony was contradicted by 16 eyewitnesses who testified that Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown as he raised his hands in the universal gesture of surrender.

Thanks to Michael Bastone, Andrew Goldberg and Joseph Jesselli at the Smoking Gun, we now know that she committed perjury before the grand jury. She was not present at the scene and made everything up after following media reports about the shooting.

For example, she lives approximately 30 miles from Ferguson and initially told the grand jury that she drove to Ferguson to meet with an African-American friend with whom she had last had contact in 1988. But she could not recall her name or her address. When she returned to testify a second time before the grand jury, she admitted that she had not told the truth.

When Sandra McElroy [Witness 40] returned to the Ferguson grand jury on November 3, she brought a spiral notebook purportedly containing her handwritten journal entries for some dates in August, including the Saturday Michael Brown was shot.

Before testifying about the content of her notebook scribblings, McElroy admitted that she had not driven to Ferguson in search of an African-American pal she had last seen in 1988. Instead, McElroy offered a substitute explanation that was, remarkably, an even bigger lie.

McElroy, again under oath, explained to grand jurors that she was something of an amateur urban anthropologist. Every couple of weeks, McElroy testified, she likes to “go into all the African-American neighborhoods.” During these weekend sojourns–apparently conducted when her ex has the kids–McElroy said she will “go in and have coffee and I will strike up a conversation with an African-American and I will try to talk to them because I’m trying to understand more.”

Her journal entry for the day of the shooting says she went to Ferguson “to stop calling Blacks ‘ni**ers’ start calling them people.”

Hooray for her.

I encourage readers to read the article. The authors did a splendid job doing what good investigators should do. Discover the truth.

What is deeply troubling is how easy they were able to determine who Witness 40 was and prove that she made up everything. They figured that out in two days. The FBI figured it out when they interviewed her on October 22nd, before she testified before the grand jury. Questions we must all ask are:

1) why didn’t the police and the prosecutor figure this out?

2) if they did figure it out, when did they do so?

3) did they know that she made the whole story up before they put her on the stand for the first time at the grand jury?

4) if not, did they know that she was a liar before they put her on the stand for the second time at the grand jury?

They were incompetent, if they did not know she was a liar. If they did know she was a liar, they suborned perjury by having her testify before the grand jury — not once, but twice. Subornation of perjury is a felony.

St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch has some ‘splainin’ to do, but he probably should exercise his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent as should his assistant prosecutors, especially the one who gave the wrong legal definition regarding the lawful use of force.

Seriously folks, you can’t make this stuff up.

Although McElroy did a terrible thing, she has serious mental health issues that need to be considered lest she be judged too harshly. I suspect she was used and I am more offended by the people who used her and abused the public trust to prevent the grand jury from indicting Wilson.


The Grand Jury did not exonerate Officer Darren Wilson

December 2, 2014

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Good afternoon:

Jeff Roorda, the spokesperson for the St.Louis Police Officers’s Association lied when he said the grand jury exonerated Officer Darren Wilson. As a former law enforcement officer, he knows that is not true.

The grand jury merely decided that the prosecution failed to convince nine of the twelve members that there was probable cause to believe Wilson murdered Michael Brown. That decision is not an adjudication of the merits of the case and is not binding on anyone. A new grand jury could be summoned tomorrow to reinvestigate the case and it could decide to indict Wilson. He would have no legal basis to attack the validity of the indictment by arguing that a previous grand jury did not return an indictment.

All judges, prosecutors, police and defense counsel know this to be true. Roorda does too and this is not the first time he lied.

He was fired for lying in a police report and failed upward to his present position. That is a sign of systemic corruption.

For the following reasons, the grand jury’s decision was illegitimate and should be dismissed.

The fix was in from the very beginning.

Wilson never filled out an offense report and was never asked to fill one out.

They allowed him to drive unaccompanied to the station house and clean-up in the wash room with no witness present. They let him place his gun into evidence and made arrangements to let him meet with his lawyer in an interview room before asking him any questions.

That. Never. Happens.

The extreme pro-police bias of the prosecution that is evident throughout the grand jury witness transcripts, including an unconstitutional legal definition of self-defense submitted by the prosecution regarding when a police officer may use deadly force, so corrupted the grand jury process as to render its decision a nullity. This conclusion cannot be legitimately questioned given that Wilson voluntarily testified for four hours without challenge by the prosecution.

That. Never. Happens.

Consider the following grand jury basics:

1) The terms ‘guilty,’ ‘not guilty’ and ‘presumption of innocence’ are legal terms of art that have specific definitions. These terms do not apply to a person who has not been charged with a crime.

2) The ‘presumption of innocence’ does not mean innocence in fact. The presumption only applies to defendants who have been charged with a crime when a fact finder, be it a judge or jury, deliberates on reaching a verdict. If it were otherwise, no defendant would ever be denied bail and there would be no conditions of release.

3) The grand jury was not required or instructed to presume Wilson was innocent and it did not find him innocent. It found that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish probable cause to believe Wilson committed a crime when he killed Michael Brown. This decision is not an adjudication and does not prevent another grand jury from considering the evidence and returning an indictment.

4) No rule requires anyone to presume Darren Wilson is innocent. He is neither ‘guilty’ nor ‘not guilty’ because those terms are adjudications and he has not been charged with a crime. Anyone who says he is innocent because he must be presumed innocent is mistaken.

The entire grand jury process was a whitewash and should be disregarded.


Ferguson is every city USA and Wilson is a psychopath with a badge

November 29, 2014

Saturday, November 29, 2014

Good morning:

Ferguson is every city USA because racism and white privilege are everywhere and our mostly white militarized police departments behave like an occupation army itching to kill anyone who steps out of line, especially if they have dark skin.

Darren Wilson lost his temper because Dorian Johnson and Michael Brown did not immediately obey his command to get on the sidewalk. He put his vehicle in reverse and cut them off, nearly running them over, and then he swung his door open hitting them.

Michael Brown shoved the door back, just as I might have done in a flash of anger, if I had been in his situation.

Wilson could not handle such disrespect, so he grabbed Michael’s shirt with his left hand and reached for his gun with his right hand.

With good reason considering the epidemic of police harassment and killings of people of color, Michael attempted to prevent Wilson from shooting him.

But Wilson was determined to kill him and nothing was going to stop him.

The demon he described was his own racist self that he projected onto Michael Brown, demonizing him to justify taking a life.

And he has no regrets, none whatsoever, because no black kid is going to get away with challenging his authority.

Darren Wilson is a racist psychopath with a badge.

Ferguson happened a week ago in a park in Cleveland when a rookie cop murdered a black 12-year-old kid.

Ferguson happened on Staten Island when a cop psychopath murdered Eric Garner by choking him to death as other cops restrained him.

The real terrorists in this country are the militarized police departments and the psychopaths with badges.

No place is safe. No place at all.

And if you think you are safe because you are white, think again.

Two words.

Kelly Thomas.

Think twice before you call 911.

It could be the last call you ever make.


Transcripts show #DarrenWilson lied to the grand jury

November 25, 2014

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Good afternoon:

I caught Officer Darren Wilson in a major lie regarding whether he stopped the two boys in response to the radio call about the theft of a box of cigarillos from the Ferguson Market.

First we have a transcript of his grand jury testimony:

Question by Prosecutor Ms. Whirley

Q: Okay. Did you get any other calls between the time of the sick baby call and your interaction with Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson?
A: While on the sick case call, a call came out for a stealing in progress from the local market on West Florissant, that the suspects traveling toward QT. I didn’t hear the entire call, I was on my portable radio, which isn’t exactly the best. I did hear that a suspect was wearing a black shirt and that a box of Cigarillos was stolen.
Q: And this was your call or you just heard the call?
A: It was not my call. I heard the call.
Q: Some other officers were dispatched to that call.
A: I believe two others were.
Q: Was it a call you were going to go toalso?
A: No.
Q: So you weren’t really geared to handle that call?
A: No.
/snip/
A: As I approached them, I stopped a couple of feet in front of Johnson as they are walking toward me, I am going toward them. As Johnson came along my driver’s side mirror I said, “why don’t you guys walk on the sidewalk?” He kept walking, as he is walking, he said, “we are almost to our destination.”
Q: Do you think he used those words destination, we are almost to our destination?
A: Yes, ma’am. He said we are almost to our destination and he pointed this direction over my vehicle. So like in a northeasternly (sic) direction. As he did that, he kept walking and Brown was starting to come around the mirror and as he came around the mirror I said, “well, what’s wrong with the sidewalk?” Brown then replied, um it has vulgar language.
Q: You can say it, say it.
A: Brown then replied, “fuck what you have to say.” And when he said that, it drew my attention totally to Brown. It was very unusual and not expected response from a simple request.
When I start looking at Brown, first thing I notice is in his right hand, his hand is full of Cigarillos. I looked in my mirror, I did a double check that Johnson was wearing a black shirt. These are the two from the stealing.
And they kept walking, as I said, they never once stopped, never got on the sidewalk, they stayed in the middle of the road.
So I got on my radio and Frank 21 is my call sign that day, I said Frank 21 I’m on Canfield with two, send me another car.
I then placed my car in reverse and backed up and I backed up just past them and then angled my vehicle, the back of my vehicle to kind of cut them off, kind of to keep them somewhat contained.

[GJ, Vol. V pp. 202-209]

Second, now we have a transcript of his direct supervisor’s testimony. Sergeant LNU* responded to the scene within minutes after the shooting and was the first person to interview him.

Question by a Prosecutor Ms. Alizadeh

Q: Did he know about it? Did he talk about knowing about the stealing?
A: He did not know anything about the stealing call.
Q: He told you he did not know anything about the stealing?
A: He did not know anything. He was out on another call in the apartment complex adjacent to Canfield Green.
[GJ, Vol. V, pp. 52-53]

Question by a GJ member

Q: Now, my question to you is this. Are you saying that because he told you he didn’t know about it or are you saying that because he didn’t mention It to you when you were talking to him?
A: He did not mention it to me again. I learned about it at a later time.
Q: Has he ever told you, yeah, I didn’t know anything about what happened up at the Ferguson Market?
A: Yes, he told me that in subsequent conversations.
Q: He told you he didn’t know about there being a stealing at the Ferguson Market?
A: Correct

[GJ, Vol. V, p. 58]

The shooting happened on Saturday, August 9, 2014.

Wilson was not questioned by anyone else until after he conferred with his lawyer at the station house.

Both witnesses testified before the grand jury on September 16, 2014, which was 5 weeks after the shooting.

My question is, how can anyone believe Officer Darren Wilson regarding any material issue of fact when he lied about the reason he stopped the boys to portray them as criminal thieves?

*LNU means last name unknown


Weekend reads and open thread

November 22, 2014

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Good afternoon:

The waiting continues as we are being told that the grand jury did not reach a decision yesterday regarding whether they should indict Darren Wilson.

I won’t bother to speculate about what is going on because I have already decided that the process is illegitimate.

Meanwhile, most of you have been following Shaun King’s fine work analyzing the Michael Brown shooting. Here is his latest, Video: Police lied. Mike Brown was killed 148 feet away from Darren Wilson’s SUV.

FYI: Here is an excerpt from a book by George Lakoff titled, The Strict Father Is at the Core of Conservative Ideology and Values.

For a pleasant change of pace, check out this article by Paul Bibeau titled, Should We Defund The Pentagon And Give That Money To Canadian Musicians?

Best wishes to all,

Fred and Crane


Tired of waiting for the inevitable whitewash in #MichaelBrownShooting

November 20, 2014

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Good afternoon:

I am tired of waiting for the inevitable. No one with a functioning brain cell is fooled by the bullshit going on in St.Louis.

Darren Wilson executed Michael Brown in Ferguson on Saturday, August 9th and the smoke-and-mirrors show going on pretending there is any doubt about the outcome of the secret grand jury ‘investigation’ changes nothing. They are going to decide not to indict Wilson because the outcome has been rigged since the cops started lying claiming Michael Brown’s body was only 35 feet from Wilson’s SUV when they knew it was 108 feet away.

Brown never bull rushed Wilson and they know it.

Enough with the bullshit.

Time to get down to business.

And that business may involve the KKK because Anonymous is claiming that it has discovered a connection between Wilson and the KKK.

Anonymous hacked into the KKK’s Twitter account and hijacked it. Inquitr reports that Anonymous Vows To Release Evidence Linking Darren Wilson To The KKK.


Defense of #Ferguson grand jury as a crucible for truth fails straight-face test

November 18, 2014

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Good morning:

Paul Callan, a former prosecutor, ironically calls for sanity in his article at the Daily Beast yesterday titled, There’s No Conspiracy in Ferguson’s Secret Jury. I say ‘ironically’ because his argument is based on the fundamental Sixth Amendment rights of an accused to be represented by conflict-free counsel who cross examines prosecution witnesses in a public trial, not a secret grand jury proceeding.

As he well knows, the target of the grand jury investigation is Officer Darren Wilson. Neither Wilson nor his lawyer have a right to be present when the grand jury hears evidence about his case. They have no right to know who the witnesses are or what they say and there is no right to cross examine. There is no judge and the rules of evidence do not apply. The prosecutor decides what the charge or charges should be and he controls what evidence the grand jury gets to hear. He can introduce evidence that would not be admissible in court, such as hearsay or inadmissible civilian and expert opinions. He has no obligation to present exculpatory evidence. For all of these reasons, grand juries have been called star-chamber proceedings. Critics are only half-kidding when they say that a prosecutor can persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

The flaw in Callan’s argument is that he assumes that the prosecutor will play the traditional role of defense counsel in a public trial to aggressively, thoroughly and effectively expose the truth in the crucible of cross examination. That assumption is false because a prosecutor’s job is to represent the people by obtaining an indictment to prosecute the defendant, not defend him. If, as in this case, the prosecutor has close ties to police — his father was a white police officer who was killed by a black male and he has a history of sympathy for white cops and antipathy for black defendants — there is a reasonable and legitimate concern that he has a conflict of interest.

The unstated premise in Callan’s call for ‘sanity’ is no one should worry about the outcome of the grand jury because the prosecutor is going to play the role normally entrusted to an aggressive, thorough and effective defense lawyer using cross examination to expose the black eyewitnesses for the ‘liars’ that they are.

The grand jury’s job is limited to deciding if probable cause exists to believe Darren Wilson murdered an unarmed Michael Brown. The answer is “Yes,” and we have known that since August 9th, a few hours after the shooting.

Whether he is guilty or not guilty should be determined by a jury after a full and fair public trial presided over by a judge who correctly applies the rules of evidence.

Read this excerpt from Callan’s call for sanity and let us know what you think.

In a high-profile matter like the Brown case, the prospect of a witness getting his or her name and image in the newspaper or on TV by embellishing the story is for some an irresistible temptation. Repeating an embellished story before a grand jury while under oath is an entirely different matter. The grand jury inquiry affords opportunity to test accuracy of witness accounts. If the witness did in fact witness such a terrible crime, the testimony will survive in the crucible of cross-examination. If true, it will have a discernable [sic] consistency with the forensic evidence. Was the witness really in the time and place to have made the claimed observations? Was the suspect raising his hands in a surrender gesture or could the arm placement have been viewed from a different angle as an aggressive “tackle” gesture? How close was Michael Brown to Officer Wilson when he turned in Wilson’s direction? How much time did the officer have to react? Do the varied autopsy reports support or contradict witness testimony? Did Michael Brown have a motive to violently attack the officer?

Experienced prosecutors can recount case after case of witnesses recanting or altering colorful public statements under cross-examination. Witnesses also make unintentional errors sometimes based on what they have heard from others. Once again focused inquiry by the prosecutor and even the grand jurors who have the right to ask their own questions, can clarify ambiguous or inaccurate points.

By the way, I happen to know a lot about grand jury practice and procedure because I have represented many clients who were targets, subjects or witnesses during my 30-year career as a felony criminal defense lawyer.

To say that a grand jury is an ideal way to discover the truth does not pass the straight-face test because it cannot be said without laughing.


%d bloggers like this: