should brown prosecutor be charged?

[Russ_Watters]

No, he didn't.

Then explain your wording choice. Why would you need the qualifier in front of "cross-examine" if not to say that there was some, but just not enough?

I am on record as claiming that none of the witnesses whose testimony fully agreed with Wilson's account, including Wilson, were questioned adversarily or exposed to the jury as lying or lacking credibility. And I am on record as making that claim without having bothered to read through the entire mass of witness testimony.

Um....really? How could you possibly know what is and isn't in the testimony if you haven't read the testimony? I'm shocked that you would admit that -- even Bells and Tiassa are avoiding admitting that!

That's low-hanging fruit - if you can't knock that one down you have no hope of defending the impartiality of that grand jury hearing.

Heh, right:
Prosecutor: I haven't talked to any witnesses or read anyone's depositions, but he's GUILTY! The prosecution rests.
Jury: Guilty!

Yeah, that's how burden of proof works in law.

 

[Trooper]

There isn't enough not-on-fire content in that post to even provide a foothold for a rational discussion, so I must decline to respond.

WTF? This is getting ridiculous. Are both, Tiassa and iceaura refusing to take their meds orally?

Well, uh, Russ…you focus on the right hand and Joe here can take the left. I’ll track down James and tell 'em he's going to have to glove up again.

 

[iceaura]

Then explain your wording choice.

No.

You need to reconsider your role here. I handed you the lowest hanging fruit you could possibly ask for, and that's the thanks I get?

Um....really? How could you possibly know what is and isn't in the testimony if you haven't read the testimony?

I have read a lot of it, and made my assessment. Am I wrong? All you need is a counterexample. So far, no counterexample from you or anyone - so - - - - - .

All you have to do is find one pro-Wilson witness who was exposed in a known falsehood, confronted with known contradictions of physical evidence, or had their known background used against their credibility, in front of the grand jury.

You don't seem to think it's worth even skimming for that - and I don't blame you. The scam the prosecutor is pulling in that hearing is not subtle, he works it consistently throughout, and there's a lot to wade through, so it's a discouraging prospect to dig through the vast majority of that pile to discover one or two aberrant instances that might or might not even exist. I don't really expect you to do that - another reason my otherwise way overstated claim is probably safe.

Thing is, you've already dodged the argument. You're already trying to avoid the actual issues. The bad scene in that hearing transcript is that the man's got an agenda, and it's obvious. But you are not going to deal with that reality. You are going to insist that if somebody can find one instance of that prosecutor asking a Wilson-friendly witness a single genuinely tough, hostile, question, that balances the entire mass of testimony that had to be waded through to find it. And that is not reasonable argument or consideration of reality here. That's you avoiding the central matter that dominates the entire body of testimony - the bias and manipulation of the DA running the show.

But you seem to think it's important, and hey, maybe he did - good luck. Quote it if you find it.

Btw: check out your buddy's posting - Trooper in 82 - notice anything missing? They get a like from Joe, who has been posting similarly in patches, so there's a clue. Here's another: you could copypaste that into almost any thread on this forum, and it would fit as well.

You're drawing flies. No a good sign, eh?

 

[Russ_Watters]

No.

Then I'll answer for you: You really meant what you said. You recognize that asking the witness if she dreampt her testimony is challenging her credibility, so now you need to goalpost shift to get out of your contradictory absolute claim that he didn't challenge her credibility at all. Perhaps you are hoping to argue that a little bit of weak cross examination provides enough plausible deniability to leave possible the subornation of perjury.

Well, it's your lucky day. I'm such an amazingly accomodating guy that I'll let you out of it. I'll agree that just asking if she dreamed it is pretty weak. So you tell me: how much is enough? Does he need to use the word "lie" or "not the truth" in a statement or leading question to the witness? Some form of the words "you weren't there"? How much would be a reasonable amount of cross examination to eliminate the appearance of impropriety from the prosecutor?

I have read a lot of it, and made my assessment. Am I wrong?

Not right or wrong, incomplete. If you haven't finished reading yet, then you are just guessing what the rest of the testimony contains. Fantasizing that it shows subornation of perjury.

 

[iceaura]

Then I'll answer for you: You really meant what you said. You recognize that asking the witness if she dreampt her testimony is challenging her credibility

I posted my criteria - here they are again:

All you have to do is find one pro-Wilson witness who was exposed in a known falsehood, confronted with known contradictions of physical evidence, or had their known background used against their credibility, in front of the grand jury.

That's what I said, that's what I meant, in this argument. I'll go further: even a serious failed attempt to do any of those three things counts.

In short, find one witness whose testimony agreed with Wilson's account, who was treated in the manner of all the witnesses who contradicted Wilson's testimony.

Not right or wrong, incomplete

That's irrelevant. Which is almost appropriate - the entire matter of whether I am right or wrong in this specific matter is almost irrelevant as well: the hearing in its entirety was a biased, rigged, corrupted show trial orchestrated by racial bigots to exonerate a police officer's lethal screw-up, regardless of whether or not my most radical assertions about it are completely and technically correct.

I just think the fact that you can't or won't immediately and easily invalidate such a claim is striking. Educational. Look at the responses - you guys don't want to discuss the actual events or content of that hearing at all, do you.

If you haven't finished reading yet, then you are just guessing what the rest of the testimony contains

"Guessing"? Is that what you call it?

Then the odds are very much against me: by random chance, if that prosecutor and hearing were at all impartial or even close to being fair, I'd have almost no chance of being correct. There were 60+ witnesses, and we know some of the ones agreeing with Wilson's account lacked credibility (to put it mildly). So this is low hanging fruit - you have a very easy task in front of you. Go for it.

Fantasizing that it shows subornation of perjury.

The observation of subornation of perjury only requires one event for full support, and that I have read and posted: witness 40. No fantasy, no guesswork.

That was you making a claim refutable by one example. It was easy to do, low hanging fruit - the definition of subornation of perjury is on line, in multiple and reliable venues, and the circumstances of witness 40's testimony are public record as well. That's how to refute my bold and radical claim at issue.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I posted my criteria - here they are again:

Ok, great, so you acknowledge you are goalpost shifting. Like I said, since I'm a nice guy, I'll allow it in this one, specific case, but only if we can agree on the criteria:

All you have to do is find one pro-Wilson witness who was exposed in a known falsehood, confronted with known contradictions of physical evidence, or had their known background used against their credibility, in front of the grand jury.
[separate post]
That's what I said, that's what I meant, in this argument. I'll go further: even a serious failed attempt to do any of those three things counts.

In short, find one witness whose testimony agreed with Wilson's account, who was treated in the manner of all the witnesses who contradicted Wilson's testimony.

The last sentence is problematic because it implies a value judgement of equality, which could be impossible. You started this with a claim of zero challenging and now you are saying with the last bit that you want me to prove equal challenging of witnesses. If you didn't mean to say that or recognize that because it is a completely subjective judgement and will back away from that, I'll be willing to accept it. I'm willing to let you goalpost shift somewhat away from "nothing", but not to the complete opposite of your original claim -- that's not a goalpost shift, it is a flip-flop.

"Guessing"? Is that what you call it?

Yes. When you make a claim about something you don't know, because you didn't read the subject matter you are making the claim about, but rather hope is true, that's a guess.

I just think the fact that you can't or won't immediately and easily invalidate such a claim is striking.

The more rope I give you, the more thoroughly you hang yourself with it. The clearer we make your claim and criteria, the more difficult it will be for you to back out of it. That, and, of course, I don't feel inclined to do your job for you.

The observation of subornation of perjury only requires one event for full support, and that I have read and posted: witness 40. No fantasy, no guesswork.

You admitted to not reading all of the testimony of witness 40. So you are guessing what is in the testimony that you didn't read.

Anyway -- witness 40 is the one you are specifically claiming now? Despite having not read all the testimony, you claim the testimony does not contain a "serious" challenge of witness 40's testimony -- is that correct?

 

[iceaura]

Ok, great, so you acknowledge you are goalpost shifting.

That goalpost has not been moved for several exchanges now - it was set in the first place because you seemed confused about what the problem was with the prosecutor's behavior in that hearing. Several exchanges later, you seem confused still - unless you are pretending to not understand the issue? But I hesitate to attempt yet another clarification, as you seem bent on each new attempt as some kind of change in the entire argument, and start over.

You admitted to not reading all of the testimony of witness 40. So you are guessing what is in the testimony that you didn't read.

Apparently the concept of assessing patterns and evidence to inform one's opinion is foreign to you - but since you have established no relevance for whether I'm "guessing" or not, you may continue to make that error of reasoning (I have "admitted" nothing about witness 40's testimony; also the word "So - " is a mistake) without necessarily being wrong about anything else. So continue - so what?

Anyway -- witness 40 is the one you are specifically claiming now?

My claim at issue was about all the witnesses, not just one. That is central to it. I am not claiming that any witness is "the one".

Despite having not read all the testimony, you claim the testimony does not contain a "serious" challenge of witness 40's testimony -- is that correct?

Any single example would be sufficient, for you.

Note that to prevent any bs over the word "serious" and similar issues , I set the criteria down explicitly and in advance, so you can have no difficulty in dealing with my actual claim, and no reason to invent one of your own. In general, specifics above, the prosecutor must bring to bear his knowledge and information about at least one of the witnesses who supported Wilson's account, using his available means to discredit one in the manner he used them against all witnesses who contradicted Wilson's account. Here they are yet again:

All you have to do is find one pro-Wilson witness who was exposed in a known falsehood, confronted with known contradictions of physical evidence, or had their known background used against their credibility, in front of the grand jury.

And to make things even easier for you:

even a serious failed attempt to do any of those three things counts.

Find such a witness - maybe you think witness 40 will do? (Although I have read witness 40's questioning, and already noted that its failure to discredit a known perjurer was so flagrant as to constitute subornation of perjury, so that might not be your best choice) - and you have your counter-example to my very bold claim.

With that out of the way, you could then turn you attention to the actual argument - do you remember what it is?