Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I care only about the evidence and getting to the truth...Sadly, the black community cares only about violence and hatred.
I've already listed several examples of irregularities in that particular grand jury that would almost guarantee them not returning an indictment, and I don't care to go into that again. Perhaps you could go back and read them, or perhaps do a little research for yourself. You might want to start with PBS. They have a very nice "documented" chart that lists responses from the witnesses.
Did you see all the evidence? Were you in the Grand Jury room? Do you know what the witnesses said in the Grand Jury room?
You have a version that is made up of a media entity, what is their bias? You have no idea, because you aren't at PBS.
You are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on your prejudice and bias.
Well, no, I wasn't in the grand jury room, but I did read the transcripts, and read remarks made by Scalia describing the function of a grand jury, as well as many other sources of fact and opinion. Contrary to your belief, I don't just accept the word of any particular source of information unless they can document what is said and clearly define the line between their opinion, and what can be documented. I suspect you just accept anything fox says and discount any other source. You need to realize that it's not just a matter of us vs. them when it comes to information. Find out for yourself.
Sorry I don't watch FoxNews, what gave you that idea? It wouldn't be bias and bigotry would it?
Did a lot of reading, I know the Grand Jury procedure and you need a lot less to get an indictment than a conviction, so the evidence did not require a lot and apparently there is little to move ahead.
The evidence and the reports are very mixed but several witnesses said Wilson account was accurate, inspire of pressure from their community wanted, in spite of what the liberals wanted.
I found out for myself and a Grand Jury that saw the evidence agree with me.
Great. We both know a little about grand jury proceedings. How often is defense evidence usually presented in a normal grand jury, (never) and how often is the prosecutor the one who presents the defense evidence (again, never) Happened here though. Why?
Grand Jury testimony is not usually released to the public, the prosecutor was trying to be accommodating because of the special circumstances.
I would think with all the reading and research in this case you would have read it.
Did you see all the evidence? Were you in the Grand Jury room? Do you know what the witnesses said in the Grand Jury room?
You have a version that is made up of a media entity, what is their bias? You have no idea, because you aren't at PBS.
You are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on your prejudice and bias.
Well, no, I wasn't in the grand jury room, but I did read the transcripts, and read remarks made by Scalia describing the function of a grand jury, as well as many other sources of fact and opinion. Contrary to your belief, I don't just accept the word of any particular source of information unless they can document what is said and clearly define the line between their opinion, and what can be documented. I suspect you just accept anything fox says and discount any other source. You need to realize that it's not just a matter of us vs. them when it comes to information. Find out for yourself.
Sorry I don't watch FoxNews, what gave you that idea? It wouldn't be bias and bigotry would it?
Did a lot of reading, I know the Grand Jury procedure and you need a lot less to get an indictment than a conviction, so the evidence did not require a lot and apparently there is little to move ahead.
The evidence and the reports are very mixed but several witnesses said Wilson account was accurate, inspire of pressure from their community wanted, in spite of what the liberals wanted.
I found out for myself and a Grand Jury that saw the evidence agree with me.
Great. We both know a little about grand jury proceedings. How often is defense evidence usually presented in a normal grand jury, (never) and how often is the prosecutor the one who presents the defense evidence (again, never) Happened here though. Why?
Grand Jury testimony is not usually released to the public, the prosecutor was trying to be accommodating because of the special circumstances.
I would think with all the reading and research in this case you would have read it.
Releasing the testimony is the reason so many irregularities can be documented. I'm certainly glad it was released, but that had no effect on how it was presented, or on the outcome. The prosecutor not following procedure during the testimony did. Again, I ask, how often does the prosecutor generally present defense evidence in a Grand Jury, and why do you think he did this time?
Well, no, I wasn't in the grand jury room, but I did read the transcripts, and read remarks made by Scalia describing the function of a grand jury, as well as many other sources of fact and opinion. Contrary to your belief, I don't just accept the word of any particular source of information unless they can document what is said and clearly define the line between their opinion, and what can be documented. I suspect you just accept anything fox says and discount any other source. You need to realize that it's not just a matter of us vs. them when it comes to information. Find out for yourself.
Sorry I don't watch FoxNews, what gave you that idea? It wouldn't be bias and bigotry would it?
Did a lot of reading, I know the Grand Jury procedure and you need a lot less to get an indictment than a conviction, so the evidence did not require a lot and apparently there is little to move ahead.
The evidence and the reports are very mixed but several witnesses said Wilson account was accurate, inspire of pressure from their community wanted, in spite of what the liberals wanted.
I found out for myself and a Grand Jury that saw the evidence agree with me.
Great. We both know a little about grand jury proceedings. How often is defense evidence usually presented in a normal grand jury, (never) and how often is the prosecutor the one who presents the defense evidence (again, never) Happened here though. Why?
Grand Jury testimony is not usually released to the public, the prosecutor was trying to be accommodating because of the special circumstances.
I would think with all the reading and research in this case you would have read it.
Releasing the testimony is the reason so many irregularities can be documented. I'm certainly glad it was released, but that had no effect on how it was presented, or on the outcome. The prosecutor not following procedure during the testimony did. Again, I ask, how often does the prosecutor generally present defense evidence in a Grand Jury, and why do you think he did this time?
Again research told me that the Prosecutor wanted to go above and beyond, and present all the evidence. It was a special case. What about those good citizens whose testimony went against the pressure of their neighborhood and the liberal DOJ and told the truth that exonerated Wilson. Did those black Americans lie or are they "uncle toms"?
Why he changes what he did? Would you not want to make sure there were no mistakes and make sure there is nothing left to chance. He also knows the DOJ would be overseeing everything he does.
The pressure to bring charges far outweighed of bringing no charges. Any prosecutor would fold to the pressure, see the Martin case, they had no case and still fell to the DOJ's pressure.
In your opinion, you cannot say with any certainty what the prosecutor's intent was.Sorry I don't watch FoxNews, what gave you that idea? It wouldn't be bias and bigotry would it?
Did a lot of reading, I know the Grand Jury procedure and you need a lot less to get an indictment than a conviction, so the evidence did not require a lot and apparently there is little to move ahead.
The evidence and the reports are very mixed but several witnesses said Wilson account was accurate, inspire of pressure from their community wanted, in spite of what the liberals wanted.
I found out for myself and a Grand Jury that saw the evidence agree with me.
Great. We both know a little about grand jury proceedings. How often is defense evidence usually presented in a normal grand jury, (never) and how often is the prosecutor the one who presents the defense evidence (again, never) Happened here though. Why?
Grand Jury testimony is not usually released to the public, the prosecutor was trying to be accommodating because of the special circumstances.
I would think with all the reading and research in this case you would have read it.
Releasing the testimony is the reason so many irregularities can be documented. I'm certainly glad it was released, but that had no effect on how it was presented, or on the outcome. The prosecutor not following procedure during the testimony did. Again, I ask, how often does the prosecutor generally present defense evidence in a Grand Jury, and why do you think he did this time?
Again research told me that the Prosecutor wanted to go above and beyond, and present all the evidence. It was a special case. What about those good citizens whose testimony went against the pressure of their neighborhood and the liberal DOJ and told the truth that exonerated Wilson. Did those black Americans lie or are they "uncle toms"?
Why he changes what he did? Would you not want to make sure there were no mistakes and make sure there is nothing left to chance. He also knows the DOJ would be overseeing everything he does.
The pressure to bring charges far outweighed of bringing no charges. Any prosecutor would fold to the pressure, see the Martin case, they had no case and still fell to the DOJ's pressure.
The only reason a prosecutor presents defense evidence is when he doesn't want an indictment. That's why it is virtually never done.
In your opinion, you cannot say with any certainty what the prosecutor's intent was.Great. We both know a little about grand jury proceedings. How often is defense evidence usually presented in a normal grand jury, (never) and how often is the prosecutor the one who presents the defense evidence (again, never) Happened here though. Why?
Grand Jury testimony is not usually released to the public, the prosecutor was trying to be accommodating because of the special circumstances.
I would think with all the reading and research in this case you would have read it.
Releasing the testimony is the reason so many irregularities can be documented. I'm certainly glad it was released, but that had no effect on how it was presented, or on the outcome. The prosecutor not following procedure during the testimony did. Again, I ask, how often does the prosecutor generally present defense evidence in a Grand Jury, and why do you think he did this time?
Again research told me that the Prosecutor wanted to go above and beyond, and present all the evidence. It was a special case. What about those good citizens whose testimony went against the pressure of their neighborhood and the liberal DOJ and told the truth that exonerated Wilson. Did those black Americans lie or are they "uncle toms"?
Why he changes what he did? Would you not want to make sure there were no mistakes and make sure there is nothing left to chance. He also knows the DOJ would be overseeing everything he does.
The pressure to bring charges far outweighed of bringing no charges. Any prosecutor would fold to the pressure, see the Martin case, they had no case and still fell to the DOJ's pressure.
The only reason a prosecutor presents defense evidence is when he doesn't want an indictment. That's why it is virtually never done.
He knew it was a loaded case, he knew he was releasing the transcripts, he knew that this would be scrutinized by both sides and so he presented testimony from both sides.
In your opinion, you cannot say with any certainty what the prosecutor's intent was.Grand Jury testimony is not usually released to the public, the prosecutor was trying to be accommodating because of the special circumstances.
I would think with all the reading and research in this case you would have read it.
Releasing the testimony is the reason so many irregularities can be documented. I'm certainly glad it was released, but that had no effect on how it was presented, or on the outcome. The prosecutor not following procedure during the testimony did. Again, I ask, how often does the prosecutor generally present defense evidence in a Grand Jury, and why do you think he did this time?
Again research told me that the Prosecutor wanted to go above and beyond, and present all the evidence. It was a special case. What about those good citizens whose testimony went against the pressure of their neighborhood and the liberal DOJ and told the truth that exonerated Wilson. Did those black Americans lie or are they "uncle toms"?
Why he changes what he did? Would you not want to make sure there were no mistakes and make sure there is nothing left to chance. He also knows the DOJ would be overseeing everything he does.
The pressure to bring charges far outweighed of bringing no charges. Any prosecutor would fold to the pressure, see the Martin case, they had no case and still fell to the DOJ's pressure.
The only reason a prosecutor presents defense evidence is when he doesn't want an indictment. That's why it is virtually never done.
He knew it was a loaded case, he knew he was releasing the transcripts, he knew that this would be scrutinized by both sides and so he presented testimony from both sides.
Bullshit. A prosecutor prosecutes. That's how it works.
That is your interpretation of what happened, based on selectively filtered information given you by those predisposed to find something amiss in what the jury did. Neither you nor I were there to see what they were and were not presented with. That's why it's foolishness for us to second guess their decision. Let a judicial review happen. Let's see if there was a miscarriage of justice. Acting like we're certain there were problems is foolish.
Interpretation hell. The transcripts of the testimony have been released. You can read them for yourself.
Where did you get your law degree? I ask because you write like you presume to have knowledge about how grand juries are supposed to operate. How many transcripts like these have you studied that you know what is supposed to happen and what is not? Are you a lawyer, or are you working off something someone else told you was wrong?
If you have a specific question about what I say, ask it.
I'm asking if your certainty that something is amiss comes from your own study of American law or from something you read on the internet from someone who wants you to think something is amiss. Is that specific enough?
Sure. Some of my study does come from creditable sources on the internet that deal with matters of law. Not just a website that happens to have an article about this case, and some of it came from my 4 years as a paralegal. I know....You're going to say I'm not a lawyer, so I can't know, but I did sit in on grand jury proceedings regularly, and you don't have to be Clarence Darrow to read the transcripts and see this is nothing like a normal case.
