Listen Live
WERE AM Mobile App 2020


News Talk Cleveland Featured Video
Ferguson Burns_640x427

A Ferguson firefighter surveys rubble at a strip mall that was set on fire when rioting erupted following the grand jury announcement in the Michael Brown case on November 25, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Since the night St. Louis Country prosecutor Bob McCullough announced that police officer Darren Wilson would face no charges in the death of unarmed black teen Michael Brown and released thousands of documents in connection to the case, many interested parties have combed through the pages and analyzed them, trying to get a sense of why the grand jury decided not to indict.

CNN recently did a comprehensive breakdown of Ferguson witness reports which showed how witnesses on both sides presented conflicting information, changed their stories, and some lied under oath.

Some witnesses testimony, like that of Dorian Johnson, the young man who was with Brown the day he lost his life, was not initially released by prosecutors the night that Ferguson burned. And the question many are asking is why. Why did the prosecutor do what he did and how he did it? Was it to derail the case against Officer Wilson?
Given the untraditional nature of the grand jury and grand jury proceedings, many analysts from CNN questioned the motivation of prosecutor McCullough in both including witnesses that were not credible, and dumping all of the information at once.
Sunny Hostin, a former federal prosecutor, believes the state wanted to avoid presenting a clear-cut case that would have led to an indictment. “Prosecutors generally present very streamlined cases to the grand jury,” she says. “As a prosecutor you should not present witnesses in front of the grand jury that you wouldn’t present at trial.”
Says CNN,
Analysts differ over why prosecutors called witnesses with questionable credibility. Some say the prosecution wanted to present a jumbled case, to help Wilson. Others say the intense scrutiny and likelihood of a separate federal probe make it common in some places to toss anything and everything at a grand jury probing a controversial police killing — even witnesses who prosecutors believe aren’t likely to tell the truth.
Some witnesses told fantastical stories with no basis in reality, and some admitted to straight lying. Some, you’d have to read their testimony to believe it.
One particular witness, Witness 40, who supported Wilson’s version of events, was most likely not even in Ferguson on the day of Brown’s murder. She also posted a racist rant on Facebook the day of Brown’s death, saying, “They need to kill the f—ing n—–s. It is like an ape fest.” Witness 40 also organized a small group helping raise money for officers, including Wilson.
Witness 40 admitted to being bipolar, taking medicine for migraines, and having memory problems.

“Is it possible, do you think, that you dreamed about this after it happened and it feels real to you that you were up there?” a prosecutor asked. The witness insisted she knew it was real.

On the other side of the fence, there was another witness, 37, whose story did not seem credible either, but he pointedly asked prosecutors an interesting question.

From the testimony:

“If none of my stuff is making any sense, like why do y’all keep contacting me?” the witness asked.

And yet, all of this information, as well as dozens of others was included in grand jury testimony that ultimately resulted in Wilson’s non-indictment.

“The prosecutors didn’t want to indict,” Hostin says. “That’s why they conducted it that way.”

Read more at CNN.

Read all Grand Jury documents here.

Why Did St. Louis Prosecutor Release Obvious Lies To Grand Jury?  was originally published on