<p>Nope, that’s wrong Emily. </p>
<p>“Was Dorian Johnson a witness to the shooting?”</p>
<p>On second thought, if you are asking a question like this and have opinions nevermind.</p>
<p><a href=“Interview With Dorian Johnson Among New Grand Jury Documents Released | STLPR”>http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/interview-dorian-johnson-among-new-grand-jury-documents-released</a></p>
<p>“Johnson told the officers generally the same story he told the grand jury nearly a month after the interview. It also generally matches the story he told in multiple media interviews before and after the interview.”</p>
<p>“But. they have always known it was a lie.”</p>
<p>Really? Do you have a cite for that? </p>
<p>According to the article: "In his statement on Saturday, McCulloch called the omission of Johnson’s interview, and the transcripts of about 20 others witness interviews, “inadvertent.”</p>
<p>“A spokesman for McCulloch, Ed Magee, had previously said the office withheld some interviews at the request of the FBI, but did not clarify if the documents released on Saturday were the same interviews.”</p>
<p>Also, according to this article: "At the end of the interview, one of the law enforcement officers calls Johnson “the star witness.”</p>
<p>It is very telling that even when presented with the District Attnorney’s own words - there are people who will argue it’s not true. </p>
<p>You really ought to read that WaPo link.</p>
<p>To Al Sharpton:
</p>
<p>To the grand jury:
To whom is he lying? The answer is - it doesn’t matter, to the question of whether or not he’s a liar. </p>
<p>
Seems irrelevant, since the new beef is that McCullough allowed what he knew to be a liar to testify. Said beef also seeming irrelevant, until someone posts that he withheld from the grand jury the evidence he made that conclusion from.</p>
<p>That Washington Post article was written before Dorian Johnson’s FBI interview which has been determined to be very consistent with what he told the grand jury. I don’t care what he told to Al Sharpton. I care about what he told the FBI and what he told the Grand Jury. </p>
<p>That you cannot see the difference between putting a witness on the stand who was at the scene of the crime - regardless if there were inconsistencies in his testimony (which there were very few of- and one who was not and whose whole testimony was ripped off from a news article is telling and allows me to completely disregard anything you say. </p>
<p>“Said beef also seeming irrelevant, until someone posts that he withheld from the grand jury the evidence he made that conclusion from.”</p>
<p>So you believe that the prosecutor told the jury that witness #40 was not at the scene at all and that her testimony was all a lie? You believe he told them that?!? </p>
<p>What makes you think she wasn’t there? I mean, it sounds like she’s a nut and prosecutors knew she was a nut. But, they threw everything at this grand jury by choice and that includes a assortment of nuts and liars that supported both sides. The forensic evidence supports the officer exclusively.</p>
<p><a href=“Witness 40 in Michael Brown case raises questions about grand jury proceedings”>http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/witness-in-michael-brown-case-raises-questions-about-grand-jury/article_4cf83e2e-5241-50ce-a3e5-0097eb9b31dc.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t make up the “false narrative” phrase. The fact is, there are conflicting narratives here–WHICH IS WHY THERE SHOULD BE A JURY TRIAL.</p>
<p>And I don’t really care whether Michael Brown was a choir boy or a petty criminal. The justice system is supposed to work for everyone.</p>
<p>“What makes you think she wasn’t there?”</p>
<p>Because McCulloch - the prosecutor - said she wasn’t! </p>
<p>“He made reference to one woman who claimed to have seen the shooting. McCulloch said she “clearly wasn’t present. She recounted a story right out of the newspaper” that backed up Wilson’s version of events, he said. McCulloch did not return messages left with his office by The Associated Press on Friday.”</p>
<p>You can google and hear him say it for yourself if a direct quote from him in a news article isn’t enough proof for you. </p>
<p>Well, he wasn’t there either. How would he know? And, how do you know he’s talking about witness 40 in that little quote. It could just as easily be one of the early hands up lying witnesses who all just weirdly popped up out of nowhere with the exact same false narrative, oddly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I might imagine he told the grand jury isn’t even of interest to me, which why you’ll notice I didn’t reference it in that sentence you quoted.</p>
<p>I suppose we’ll just have to disagree about the significance of situational lying, emily, The kindest way I could describe Mr. Johnson’s many stories is that he occasionally, not always, appears to be reined in by physical evidence. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“4 things that should happen now that we know the truth about Witness #40, a white supremacist”>4 things that should happen now that we know the truth about Witness #40, a white supremacist;
<p>Oh, I see. You are not reading real news. That explains your confusion. </p>
<p>My question is, did the prosecutor put any others on the stand that he likewise knew were not witnesses? I’m not talking about people he agreed or disagreed with, but people who like witness 40, claimed to be there and/or see the events, whom he knew in advance were not there or did not see the events. </p>
<p>“Well, he wasn’t there either. How would he know?”</p>
<p>Because her story fell completely apart when it was being investigated by law enforcement officials. This was not the first time this person had inserted themselves into a criminal case where she wasn’t present, either. </p>
<p>I cannot believe you are arguing a known fact and one in which the prosecutor admitted was true. </p>
<p>I’m sorry - but anyone who can argue what you are arguing with a straight face cannot be taken seriously at all. </p>
<p>Also, I am waiting for your cite that it was the FBI who wanted Dorian’s statement withheld and also that Justice Dept knows he is a liar and the case is closed. </p>
<p>But I won’t be holding my breath. </p>
<p><a href=“Witness 40 in Michael Brown case raises questions about grand jury proceedings”>http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/witness-in-michael-brown-case-raises-questions-about-grand-jury/article_4cf83e2e-5241-50ce-a3e5-0097eb9b31dc.html</a></p>
<p>The prosecutors put her on the stand and then ripped her apart, apparently and she’s annoyed and sounds like a nut. The evidence that the FBI and the DOJ know the cop was justified is the deafening inactivity on the case. But, we’ll see.</p>
<p>“A spokesman for McCulloch, Ed Magee, had previously said the office withheld some interviews at the request of the FBI, but did not clarify if the documents released on Saturday were the same interviews.”</p>
<p>What the big deal is with Dorian Johnson I don’t even know since he is about the least credible witness of the bunch for a variety of reasons. But, the forensics were important in this case. No-one could reasonably make heads or tails of all of this conflicting witness nonsense and they didn’t try to do that. They looked at the evidence, fortunately.</p>
<p>Sorry Marie. You need to read both her FBI and Grand Jury Testimony. There was no ripping apart and because she
“has memory problems” they allow her to bring in what she she says she wrote down right after she got home from "witnessing the shooting’ - which they then put into evidence! </p>
<p>ocumentcloud.org/documents/1370504-grand-jury-volume-15.html</p>
<p><a href=“Please read Witness #40's FBI interview and grand-jury testimony. Just read it.”>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/02/1348854/-Please-read-Witness-40-s-FBI-interview-and-grand-jury-testimony-Just-read-it</a></p>
<p>Dorian Johnson was at the scene. There is no evidence that he is lying in his testimony and there were at least 16 other witnesses brought who corroborated his testimony about Brown’s hands being up. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/”>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/</a></p>
<p>“There is no evidence that he is lying in his testimony”</p>
<p>Of course, there is. Blood, shell casings, and bullet wounds in the wrong places.</p>
<p>So some evidence that was presented supports Wilson’s version of the story. What about the evidence that McCulloch might have “inadvertently” failed to present, as he did with key pieces of testimony?</p>
<p>What else is astonishing here is that those of us who would like to see a fair trial for Darren Wilson would be fine with him being acquitted if the full facts of the case support his position. But those of you who steadfastly refuse to consider the possibility that the grand jury investigation, and the testimony and evidence presented in it, was flawed are adamantly opposed to a jury trial. Now why might that be?</p>
<p>That is not evidence that he was lying. Imagine if you were in his exact place and in the space of 2 minutes the same situation happened right in front of you. Is it not possible your recollection might be a little different then what the physical evidence might end up showing? </p>
<p>Many of the witnesses also corroborated many of the details of his testimony. In addition - I believe Officer Wilson’s testimony as to the distance Michael Brown was from him when he turned around was off by 100 ft - even though the physical evidence showed Brown was 150 ft from Wilson and Wilson testimony was he was much closer than that. </p>
<p><a href=“Why exactly did the police lie for 108 days about how far Mike Brown ran from Darren Wilson?”>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/26/1347499/-Why-exactly-did-the-police-lie-for-108-days-about-how-far-Mike-Brown-ran-from-Darren-Wilson</a></p>
<p>Since the physical evidence showed something different he must be a liar too. </p>
<p>Then there are these unorthodox things Officer Wilson and the Ferguson police did after the shooting in not protecting the some of the evidence like not testing Officer Wilson’s gun for fingerprints. </p>
<p><a href=“Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence Reveals Mistakes, Holes In Investigation | HuffPost Latest News”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>Emilybee, the 150 ft was from the car not the officer who got out of the car and chased the suspect. And, we really don’t need fingerprints on the gun to prove that MB’s hand was near the gun since he had a close-range bullet wound on his hand. I don’t get the sense that you have followed this very closely so rehashing the whole case when it is very clearly over makes no sense. Maybe, you could just reread the whole thread.</p>
<p>Sorry, Marie, there are inconsistencies with the evidence in all the witnesses testimonies - even Off. Wilson’s… And Wilson testified Brown grabbed his gun but there is no evidence of that at all as they did not test for fingerprints. That his hand was close to the gun does not mean he was even grabbing the gun. That you could believe it was unimportant for that gun to be tested for fingerprints is very telling. </p>
<p>You seem to want to brush off the problems with this case with an “it doesn’t matter” if the police didn’t follow standard procedure and it doesn’t matter that the prosecutor put on a witness that he knew was a liar and not even at the scene. </p>
<p>I have followed this case quite closely. I think you haven’t read the released documents. I also think you don’t understand the role of the Grand Jury. </p>