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.
Ya cause after all the evidence does not include browns blood in the car and on Wilson right?He would never have gotten away with that testimony in a regular trial.
The forensic evidence contradicts his testimony. According to Wilson he said that Brown was trying to hit him after the shot him in the hand. There should also have been a blood trail from the vehicle to the body. Wilson even said that Brown was holding his hand against his stomach (probably trying to stem the bleeding). Wilson made out that he thought that Brown was going for a gun.
The fact that there was no cross examination is criminal in my opinion.
That is a LIE!The forensic evidence contradicts his testimony.
Of course it does. A trial would have been even more of a wash than Zimmerman.That is a LIE!The forensic evidence contradicts his testimony.
The forensic evidence does in fact, corroborate everything Wilson said.
Not all evidence was released to the internet prior to the hearing. Some wrongly assume that the evidence does not exist.That is a LIE!The forensic evidence contradicts his testimony.
The forensic evidence does in fact, corroborate everything Wilson said.
There is no such thing as a cross examination at a grand jury proceeding. The jury does not decide guilt or innocence. Cross examination is both unnecessary and illegal. The sole function of the grand jury is to determine if there is evidence no matter how slight to hold the accused over for trial.Without a cross examination the testimony is biased. The GJ were not lawyers. They were not forensic experts. They were given one side of the story only. There are way too many questions that would have been answered in a genuine trial.
There is no such thing as a cross examination at a grand jury proceeding. The jury does not decide guilt or innocence. Cross examination is both unnecessary and illegal. The sole function of the grand jury is to determine if there is evidence no matter how slight to hold the accused over for trial.Without a cross examination the testimony is biased. The GJ were not lawyers. They were not forensic experts. They were given one side of the story only. There are way too many questions that would have been answered in a genuine trial.
Some juisdictions don't use a grand jury proceeding. The determination is done in a courtroom by a judge in a proceeding called a preliminary hearing. There is no cross examination allowed there either.
Without a cross examination the testimony is biased. The GJ were not lawyers. They were not forensic experts. They were given one side of the story only. There are way too many questions that would have been answered in a genuine trial.
There is no such thing as a cross examination at a grand jury proceeding. The jury does not decide guilt or innocence. Cross examination is both unnecessary and illegal. The sole function of the grand jury is to determine if there is evidence no matter how slight to hold the accused over for trial.Without a cross examination the testimony is biased. The GJ were not lawyers. They were not forensic experts. They were given one side of the story only. There are way too many questions that would have been answered in a genuine trial.
Some juisdictions don't use a grand jury proceeding. The determination is done in a courtroom by a judge in a proceeding called a preliminary hearing. There is no cross examination allowed there either.
The GJ was exploited as a means to avoid a jury trial. Had there been a genuine trial that testimony would have been subject to cross examination. That was a political move by the prosecutor to defeat the ends of justice in my opinion.
This thread should be moved to the conspiracy section
This thread should be moved to the conspiracy section
Preferring genuine justice to a mislead GJ is a "conspiracy" on your planet?
For "genuine" justice you don't take cases like these to trial for political purposes.This thread should be moved to the conspiracy section
Preferring genuine justice to a mislead GJ is a "conspiracy" on your planet?
Forensics concluded Brown's blood was on the officers uniform, his squad car, and on the officers gun.He would never have gotten away with that testimony in a regular trial.
The forensic evidence contradicts his testimony. According to Wilson he said that Brown was trying to hit him after the shot him in the hand. There should also have been a blood trail from the vehicle to the body. Wilson even said that Brown was holding his hand against his stomach (probably trying to stem the bleeding). Wilson made out that he thought that Brown was going for a gun.
The fact that there was no cross examination is criminal in my opinion.
Do us all a favor pal and fuck off.This thread should be moved to the conspiracy section
Preferring genuine justice to a mislead GJ is a "conspiracy" on your planet?