General Discussion

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)

27. If the physical evidence does not match the testimony of the 12 witnesses

Thu Nov 27, 2014, 02:08 PM

Nov 2014

then it tends to bring doubt on the credibility of those 12 witnesses. Physical evidence almost always trumps witness testimony.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If 12 witnesses said Wilson shot at Brown as Brown ran away and only 4 witnesses denied that, [View all] Vattel Nov 2014 OP

You do not as a jury simply add up the number of accounts and rule in favor of the account with the kelly1mm Nov 2014 #1

I recognize that kelly1mm. The devil is in the details. Vattel Nov 2014 #3

SO SORRY! Did not read carefully enough! MY BAD! nt kelly1mm Nov 2014 #6

Your interpretation of my original post was very reasonable (I have now altered it). Vattel Nov 2014 #9

haha! I re read your OP and saw the change, thought I missed it the first time, and edited. kelly1mm Nov 2014 #11

Credibility is for the trial jury. Sufficency of the evidence is for the grand jury. rug Nov 2014 #5

Apparently the grand jury disagreed. Maybe jury nullification? Prosecutorial incompetence? We may kelly1mm Nov 2014 #8

I'd like to see the instructions the prosecutor gave to the grand jury. rug Nov 2014 #10

Exactly... there was more than enough here to let a jury sort it out... SomethingFishy Nov 2014 #12

The attempt at making it thousands of pages won't stop people from picking it apart. Rex Nov 2014 #2

because they didn't get any charts....they didn't get anything but a document dump VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #4

They heard the actual witnesses testifying SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2014 #18

BUT they didn't get ANY direction from Prosecution which IS his job....you know prosecuting... VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #24

I absolutely cannot understand how at least an involuntary manslaughter bill wasn't returned Recursion Nov 2014 #7

And shooting a fleeing felon is not even legal if they do not pose an immediate danger. Vattel Nov 2014 #13

The Assistant district attorneys gave the jury a copy of a statute that hasn't been legal since 1985 PDJane Nov 2014 #14

No, you have got to be kidding me. That is fucking obscene! Vattel Nov 2014 #16

It was stupid for them to even bring in the fleeing suspect issue SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2014 #19

I keep bringing this up and will continue to do so justiceischeap Nov 2014 #20

The Michael Baden private autopsy said that a wound to the arm was consistent with Brown being shot aint_no_life_nowhere Nov 2014 #26

Here's why and it is beyond appalling... Spazito Nov 2014 #15

That means that there has to be another Grand Jury. That is simply unacceptable. Vattel Nov 2014 #17

This is the statute helpmetohelpyou Nov 2014 #22

The problem is that was NOT the statute given the Grand Jury at the beginning of... Spazito Nov 2014 #25

damn , this is nuts helpmetohelpyou Nov 2014 #28

Yes, it was deliberate misdirection on the part of the two ADAs... Spazito Nov 2014 #29

This is why we have a USDOJ helpmetohelpyou Nov 2014 #30

Way more complicated than that madville Nov 2014 #21

I think it is important not to overlook the following crucial point: Vattel Nov 2014 #23

If the physical evidence does not match the testimony of the 12 witnesses Lurks Often Nov 2014 #27

The physical evidence doesn't contradict the claim that he was shot at while he fled. Vattel Nov 2014 #33

It was meant as a general statement Lurks Often Nov 2014 #34

Good question. I just finished reading all of the witness statements. Vattel Nov 2014 #35

And when the autopsy shows the bullets hit him in the chest and forehead? NickB79 Nov 2014 #31

You wrongly assume that they all claimed that he was shot as he fled. Vattel Nov 2014 #32