This is a comment posted to the video titled Charles Barkley: Look at Evidence Michael Brown Grand Jury Saw
I saw a comment from you making the false assumption that I haven’t replied to people asking about witness 40. I spend a lot of time responding to comments so I plan to put every comment on a blog so people search to see if what they are claiming as far as me not addressing a point is actually true. It isn’t in the case you were making. I have addressed the issue of witness #40 several times in comments, I plan to make a video about it too once I finish the current video I am working on which is about torture. I will paste some of my comments addressing the fact that people are misrepresenting the situation with witness 40 :
I see some are trying to act like witness #40 was a “key witness” which the grand jury relied on BUT from what I understand the grand jury knew she was lying and the reason I say that is because of this: “But prosecutors revealed she posted a racist comment online on the day of the shooting that read “they need to kill the [expletive expletive]. It’s like an ape fest.”
And when questioned about what she allegedly saw, she admitted to having gathered some details from news reports.”
What I am saying is people are running with stories claiming that the grand jury was fooled by witness #40 but since she was questioned and admitted to having gathered some details from news reports that is what the grand jury had available to them, the grand jury was informed that she was making things up so all these people acting like it is some sort of bombshell that she lied are being deceptive.
If you read the transcripts ( http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2014/12/grand-jury-evidence-in-michael-brown.html ) you can see that the prosecutors made her look like a racist mentally ill person with mental problems who was lying and they did that also in front of the grand jury as well as questioning her motives fro testifying for Wilson, again, in front of the grand jury as you can see from the transcripts such as this examples:
Q: Okay. So you were not telling the truth
A: Okay. I’m sorry.
Q: You either were telling the truth or you weren’t?
A: I guess not, no.
A: It was not set out to be an intent lie.
Q: Do you consider yourself a racist?
A: I know what I seen, I know
you don’t believe me. As far as being out there, I
know I probably searched too much to try to refresh
Q: It is not a matter of believing
you, it is difficult when you say to us that you are
posting things online that people might consider
A: It is racist and that’s why
I turned to the other thing.
Q: So you are posting racist
things online and you are telling us, you know, and
you are telling us, you know, your account and then
there are videos that doesn’t show your car. And
then there is a map that shows you couldn’t left the
way you left from.
A: I don’t know how I left.
Q: But, obviously, we find out
what people’s motivations are when you say you
posted things online that are racist and you come in
here and tell us an account that supports Darren ….
Q: You have memory issues you said, short term memory. Does
that memory kind of go away after you sleep or
throughout the day you have lunch and not remember
you have lunch or would it be the next day that you
kind of have memory lapses?
and it goes on so it is DISHONEST of Sharpton and others to act like the grand jury relied on this particular witness.
read more, they make her look bad in front of the grand jury.
Fox News is does a poor job reporting the news. I am not shocked that Sean Hannity would do poor research and not read the transcripts and understand the context. The woman was exposed in front of the grand jury. I never used her as evidence of anything supporting Wilson, the only comments I have posted about witness 40 were ones exposing how if you read the transcripts the grand jury was made aware by the questioning that this woman had problems and was not a credible and clearly not even there, that she read it from news accounts, the prosecutors pointed questions exposed all of that in front of the grand jury. You should listen to this witness who was probably the first recorded witness and all most certainly witness 10: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mAaJMBxKA4&list=PLfrlsC1yJ2dQv69rdtXrPOZhjM32FJp4l his clear testimony of not only Brown charging and stopping and charging again but how he heard others making false claims: “and he started charging towards the police officer. … then Mr. Brown continued, started again to charge towards him and after that the police officer returned fire and um well not returned, I’m using wrong … a started to fire once more at him. … nd, I was tellin’ _____ what happened and after me tellin’ _____ what happened and I’m hearin’ eveybody their side of the story, saying, “Oh, the police officer shot that kid for no reason. He had his hands up” and me knowing and seeing what actually took place, that wasn’t true and a, there was different sides to the story and every side wasn’t true so I felt uncomfortable in that situation so I decided to – to walk back to the um to _____ that I was at, originally at.” http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2014/11/witness-10-of-michael-brown-shooting.html
and he isn’t the only one: SEVERAL Michael Brown Witnesses Admitted They Lied!
Witness #48:”the dude turned back around and started charging towards the police officer, the police officer told him to stop at least three times. … And the boy wouldn’t stop”
And what about Johnson and Piaget, the two media stars? Arguable the tow witnesses given the most media coverage? How can you think these witnesses who claimed that Brown didn’t move toward the officer (or maybe “a step” or “a centimeter” are credible when the blood evidence proves they are wrong?
And what about witnesses with whom the physical evidence corroborates? Here is another example: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1371077-grand-jury-volume-11.html#document/p181
A: When I heard the gunshots and saw him firing his weapon,he was, Michael had stopped, he had stopped. He threw his hands up and then he put his hands down, Michael turned around and then he started running, he kind of shuffled back and forth a little bit like he was confused or something. And then he started running towards my car, he started running back towards us.
The officer had ran, he was running after him. He had stopped, I heard him say get down about two or three times and he kind of veered off to the side a little bit, but he still was aiming his gun at the guy, at Michael. And he after, he held his gun out at him, he was aiming the gun at him, he was telling him to get down. And like I said, Michael was shuffling back and forth like he was confused and then he started running and that’s when I started hearing him shoot.
Q: While he was running toward the officer?
A: Kind of towards the officer. I couldn’t be sure if he was running exactly towards the officer or just trying to run past him.
Q: But he was running in the officer’s direction?
A: He was running pretty much our direction. The officer was pretty much between us and Michael.
Q: And the officer was saying stop or get down?
A: Get down.
The very fact that there are witnesses who are giving the same account as Wilson gave should be evidence that this is what happened because where would they even get the idea about the sequence of events which matches the audio and blood evidence plus what Wilson said? You could never get a conviction if it had gone to trial because there is no physical evidence which contradicts what Wilson said, the evidence is consistent with what he said. You have to be able to PROVE Wilson did something wrong. And, given the evidence, cannot be done. One of my next videos will show how CNN misleads the public about this case *by stating false info* about it.
Why do you think Brown being a black person is an issue in this case when the evidence points to him assaulting a police officer and then, after running away, came charging back at him. Coming back at the officer in way that a worker who was a witness said could have been “I’m going to get you.” In a trial you have to prove Wilson did something wrong, not prove that he didn’t.