General Discussion

mainstreetonce

(4,178 posts)

35. I'm trying to think about it this way.

Thu Nov 27, 2014, 12:47 PM

Nov 2014

If Wilson had been allowed to go to trial,conviction was still unlikely. So they are not really protecting Wilson.

They are protecting the corrupt police department .

Good question....what was so important to hide that they had to make sure there will never be a trial?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

81 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What are the authorities hiding in Missouri? Why NOT cross examine Wilson on the stand? [View all] IdaBriggs Nov 2014 OP

Good questions excepting the 2nd in your subject line. TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #1

He did testify before the grand jury Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #2

Exactly. Why wasn't his "past association with disbanded corrupt Jennings" asked about? IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #6

Please explain to me how that works in a grand jury? TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #20

The prosecutor examines the witnesses Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #21

Wilson was not a "defendant" since he was not charged. TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #30

Well he was the supposed target of the prosecution Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #33

My take is that the prosecutor had no real intention of seeking an indictment. TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #34

The DA basically just let Wilson talk. jeff47 Nov 2014 #22

Are members of the jury allowed to question witnesses? TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #31

Depends on the state, IIRC. jeff47 Nov 2014 #32

This message was self-deleted by its author woolldog Nov 2014 #55

Jeff woolldog Nov 2014 #57

I don't know but... Little Star Nov 2014 #3

Because that is what the tear gassing protesters and the media and IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #7

"cross examine" means to be examined by someone other pipoman Nov 2014 #4

Since when was the person who called a witness prohibited from questioning the witness? Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #5

The point is that it isn't a "cross examination" it is a "direct examination" pipoman Nov 2014 #17

OK so you are pointing out a technicality Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #18

I believe there was no provable crime committed pipoman Nov 2014 #25

No, it is not legal to kill a fleeing person Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #26

Factually untrue since 1985. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #50

Don't believe anything pipoman writes. woolldog Nov 2014 #58

Really? And yes, KKK. They did fundraising for him, and threatened the protesters. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #8

So what? pipoman Nov 2014 #19

Lots of people have called Wilson a racist Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #23

Nobody with any credibility, nobody with a story or anecdote, pipoman Nov 2014 #36

In other words no one you agree with has called him a racist Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #39

Then educate me pipoman Nov 2014 #40

Many people have read his racist testimony Bjorn Against Nov 2014 #44

Only stupid people. pipoman Nov 2014 #47

I would be interested in any proof... Oktober Nov 2014 #77

How Do You Know That Without Effective Cross Examination? Stallion Nov 2014 #29

"cross examination" doesn't exist in a grand jury... pipoman Nov 2014 #37

Of course, neither does a Defendant getting to testify based on prosecutor soft ball direct Stallion Nov 2014 #38

The entire proceeding was like every other grand jury pipoman Nov 2014 #41

Complete and Utter Nonsense Stallion Nov 2014 #43

While I take your point, Grand Jurors themselves can question witnesses, completely KingCharlemagne Nov 2014 #48

THIS IS WRONG woolldog Nov 2014 #56

if the prosecutor had the slightest interest in an indictment, wilson wouldn't have even been there. unblock Nov 2014 #9

That is the point, isn't it? Why didn't the Prosecutor want an indictment? IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #10

prosecutors and the police need each other, they don't like alienating each other. unblock Nov 2014 #13

Plus the dad/mom/brother/uncle/cousin all working for St. Louis law enforcement. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #16

Hiding? Maybe they're protecting something...like one of their own. HereSince1628 Nov 2014 #11

Excellent questions IdaBriggs. JEB Nov 2014 #12

Massive KKK infiltration in police forces in Central MO. nt tridim Nov 2014 #14

Your questions are good. The suggestion that there could be a deep connection with the KKK is also jwirr Nov 2014 #15

This is all being done in plain sight no one is hiding anything. gordianot Nov 2014 #24

Most of those have been answered. Igel Nov 2014 #27

A Grand Jury is not a trial. earthside Nov 2014 #28

I'm trying to think about it this way. mainstreetonce Nov 2014 #35

Not only was Wilson not cross examined by the prosecutors aint_no_life_nowhere Nov 2014 #42

In response, branford Nov 2014 #45

I think to a big extent that's just the way things are done in that community Fumesucker Nov 2014 #46

Even if Wilson had been questioned further madville Nov 2014 #49

I do not believe that is how things work in a grand jury. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #54

An individual still retains their 5th Ammendment rights in a grand jury Glassunion Nov 2014 #61

So Clinton had to answer because he wasn't up against criminal charges / just civil? IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #65

He would not have to testify to the Jennings corruption charges either Glassunion Nov 2014 #69

The DA did not want an indictment Gothmog Nov 2014 #51

Maybe they forgot to check for Brown's fingerprints on Wilson's gun? B Calm Nov 2014 #52

That is one of the MANY "failures in protocol" - they did not do this. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #53

I'm struggling to figure out most of your post. Glassunion Nov 2014 #59

Sure there is. woolldog Nov 2014 #60

I think you are missing something. Glassunion Nov 2014 #62

Wrong. woolldog Nov 2014 #63

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what you are stating. Glassunion Nov 2014 #67

Let me clarify then. woolldog Nov 2014 #70

I agree Glassunion Nov 2014 #74

Of course, Wilson *is* the Defendant here. woolldog Nov 2014 #75

Ok... Where to start. Glassunion Nov 2014 #78

*sigh* woolldog Nov 2014 #79

*sigh* indeed Glassunion Nov 2014 #80

Yes. You need to provide the drafters of the Federal Rules your internet definitions. woolldog Nov 2014 #81

I have been following closely, so let me try to clarify. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #64

As your own link points out.... woolldog Nov 2014 #66

Thank you, but I am not a lawyer so I apparently used a word that made sense to me, but not the IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #68

Bingo! Glassunion Nov 2014 #71

well woolldog Nov 2014 #72

Thank you! I think she is using it because that is what Prosecutors usually do with Defendants. IdaBriggs Nov 2014 #73

Endless "buts" "what if" "wait just a minute" reminds me of Trayvon Martin, who was simply NoJusticeNoPeace Nov 2014 #76