Discussion:

Right…soooooooo, guess why the prosecutor hasn’t (and probably won’t) ask for the evidence the family thinks it can provide…

StevenNC I think I am dense this morning
Spell it out, please.
Do you mean McCulloch wants full deniability?
Or
McCulloch has determined there is zero value to any information the family could provide?
Or ____________________________

McCulloch is running unopposed in the upcoming election and I haven’t heard of any sort write in campaign

From your links:

“Police sources tell me more than a dozen witnesses have corroborated cop’s version of events in shooting,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch crime reporter Christine Byers tweeted, without elaborating.

…

Darren Wilson’s version of events, as told through his girlfriend to a friend, contradicts aspects of other eyewitness accounts

…

as to this one:

Instead of Brown being fired on while his hands were raised in surrender, the witness claims that Brown was moving towards the officer when he was shot.

There were other eyewitnesses that say otherwise. These were the construction workers who said Brown’s hands were up.

So we have a St Louis dispatcher who made claims based on what police sources told her, a friend of friends of Wilson defending him and then this Johnson guy.
All the while contradicting your earlier claim that Brown supporters are stifling witnesses.
Bravo.

ArE You SAYing I FeeL liKE a FuckING IDiot? I’m NOt a LIbturd. I aM a TRUE bLUE aMERicaN patriOT wITH HIGH degreEs OF SMArts.

I don’t think so, no, not if Missouri’s rules more or less mirror the federal rules of criminal procedure.

IT’s BEEn thOROUghLY deBUNkeD that BRowN haD hiS hANds UP bUT was INSTeaD rUSHinG at THE offiCer wITH a HANDfULL of STOLEn swISHer-Sweets AND a MENaCINg blaCKness THAt BLAck people HAVe.

Sorry, Eustice!

No chance he will tell when he writes his memoirs in 30 years then either?

Any time you claim that you’ve made a good-faith effort to reach out by telling someone to call your publicly-available phone number, you’re either lying or deluded. Actually reaching out would be scheduling a face-to-face meeting and discussing with the family what kinds of things might constitute evidence. Otherwise you’re asking the family’s lawyer to act as a shadow prosecutor, which is wrong in so many ways.

Also, is there anything in those rules of procedure that says a prosecutor has to present the whole case against someone, or is it just assumed they’re actually trying to get an indictment?

It appears you did not read the article all the way through the end. Your assumption here is undermined by the fact that the family’s attorney has had direct contact with the DA and that, at least as of the time this article was published, the attorney has indicated that the family has no evidence to provide at this time that they hadn’t already provided during the police investigation.

About an hour later, Magee emailed TPM again and suggested that Gray and the Brown family had declined the opportunity to offer evidence for the grand jury.

"Just talked with Anthony Gray," he said. "They have no requests for this office, he has been in contact with the mother of Michael Brown, and will call me if they have any requests."

As an aside, it bears pointing out that this is a criminal case. The DA represents the state, not the victim’s family and not even the victim. This is not a civil proceeding. The family does not drive the investigation or the grand jury proceeding. If the family thinks it can provide evidence that they had not turned over to the police and wishes to turn that over to the DA’s office, their attorney has the DA’s cell phone number.

This was a public execution and now the corrupt county prosecutor McCullough is taking his time fabricating an excuse and hoping time will reduce any effect of unrest.

I want to know there the hell the DOJ is in all of this.

From the article above:

“Mr. Gray was advised that we were willing to meet with the family when they were ready and he advised he would get back with us if they wished to do so,” Magee [from the District Attorney’s office] said in a Sept. 22 email.

To most “white” folks, this is just another clear case of Officer Wilson being the victim. Nothing else to read or think about.

Sad.

This is a good idea:

Missouri State Senator Jamilah Nasheed is presently working with State Rep Jay Barnes on legislation that would require special prosecutor for all officer involved shootings cases.
Hope this would apply to Prosecutors at Grand Jury indictments, as well as, trials. But I don’t have any further information beyond tweets from government representatives.

Seems like the fix is in, just like with Zimmerman.

No, YOU think so…why I don’t know. ANYONE put on trial in this country,
Wilson, me, your father, etc. would not be convicted on the evidence
that is currently known. Phrases like “casts doubt” with regard to disputed
events just does not reach the “beyond a reasonable doubt” evidence threshold we have in this country. Again, I get that you’ve made up your mind before we know all the facts and this guy has his day in court. That’s exactly the kind of prejudiced mentality that I’m complaining about.

I can’t put numbers to it now, but there has been a trend over the years of an increasing number of defendants waiving their Fifth and agreeing to take the stand before a grand jury. It has its risks, but competent defense attorneys don’t have hard and fast rules (what you characterize as “almost universal[…]”) and recognize that in some cases advising their client to waive the Fifth may make strategic sense. Alternatively, sometimes it’s a client who is adamant about their innocence and wants to take the stand despite their attorney’s advice not to.

We don’t know why the defendant here waived his Fifth, but it is not so unusual to merit the unfounded speculation that an unlawful and unethical deal must of been struck. If we have to speculate, it’s far more likely that the officer has competent counsel who has heard what the officer has to say about what happened and has concluded that the officer’s testimony is likely to be persuasive enough that it’s more likely to help rather than harm his client.

Tough audience today.

My question is simple. If the Prosecutor’s Office believes there is additional evidence, why can’t they find it, and why haven’t they found it. There are plenty of people making statements to media, subpeona the media and get the names.

That’s if the Prosecutors Office is serious about finding out what happened. I suspect that they are not serious about discovering the truth.