"Witness 40": Exposing A Fraud In Ferguson
December 16, 2014 12:18 PM Subscribe
Report: Darren Wilson's Key Witness Lied About Everything: A summation of the findings of The Smoking Gun's investigation into Sandra McElroy also known as "Witness 40", a key witness for Officer Darren Wilson which may have been instrumental in preventing an indictment for the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson. [previously]
a key witness for Officer Darren Wilson which may have been instrumental in preventing an indictment for the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson.
She was maybe the first violin, but there was a whole orchestra of instruments.
posted by Etrigan at 12:22 PM on December 16, 2014 [22 favorites]
She was maybe the first violin, but there was a whole orchestra of instruments.
posted by Etrigan at 12:22 PM on December 16, 2014 [22 favorites]
Shaun King has been talking about this on Twitter a lot, here's a story with a page-by-page breakdown.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:23 PM on December 16, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:23 PM on December 16, 2014 [6 favorites]
Witness 40 was included in the proceedings because the AG couldn't just raise his middle finger on camera.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 12:24 PM on December 16, 2014 [27 favorites]
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 12:24 PM on December 16, 2014 [27 favorites]
She was maybe the first violin, but there was a whole orchestra of instruments.
She may have been the contractor, but there was a whole shed of tools.
posted by spacewrench at 12:28 PM on December 16, 2014 [5 favorites]
She may have been the contractor, but there was a whole shed of tools.
posted by spacewrench at 12:28 PM on December 16, 2014 [5 favorites]
This is my shocked face. All cynicism aside, what are the odds of this (assuming it's true) getting a second indictment?
posted by zardoz at 12:32 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by zardoz at 12:32 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
Im sure this revelation will lead to Gov. Nixon appointing a spec....nope, can't do it. Can't even finish with a straight face.
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:32 PM on December 16, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:32 PM on December 16, 2014 [11 favorites]
This is why we routinely have open trials and public hearings, and, in some jurisdictions, public inquests, not secret grand jury "investigations, " to figure out what happened when someone dies. This is why cross-examination by a well prepared attorney is such a powerful engine for exposing liars.
The real puzzle is why the DA lacked the simple moral courage to do the job of using the grand jury in the normal way in this case - to return a true bill so that this matter could be tried.
I am still very unhappy about how the Trayvon Martin trial ended, but at least there was an actual public trial in that case. Eventually.
posted by bearwife at 12:33 PM on December 16, 2014 [26 favorites]
The real puzzle is why the DA lacked the simple moral courage to do the job of using the grand jury in the normal way in this case - to return a true bill so that this matter could be tried.
I am still very unhappy about how the Trayvon Martin trial ended, but at least there was an actual public trial in that case. Eventually.
posted by bearwife at 12:33 PM on December 16, 2014 [26 favorites]
The real puzzle is why the DA lacked the simple moral courage to do the job of using the grand jury in the normal way in this case - to return a true bill so that this matter could be tried.
Is there really a puzzle? His dad was a cop killed while on duty. His office doesn't prosecute cops, ever, except in this case he was pressured into bringing a sham proceeding by national media attention.
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:35 PM on December 16, 2014 [54 favorites]
Is there really a puzzle? His dad was a cop killed while on duty. His office doesn't prosecute cops, ever, except in this case he was pressured into bringing a sham proceeding by national media attention.
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:35 PM on December 16, 2014 [54 favorites]
The real puzzle is why the DA lacked the simple moral courage to do the job of using the grand jury in the normal way in this case
Because the DA and the police play for the same team. (In the criminal justice system...) Might as well have had Darren Wilson's mom as a prosecutor.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:38 PM on December 16, 2014 [17 favorites]
Because the DA and the police play for the same team. (In the criminal justice system...) Might as well have had Darren Wilson's mom as a prosecutor.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:38 PM on December 16, 2014 [17 favorites]
From TSG
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:40 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
A careful analysis of information contained in the unredacted portions of “Witness 40”’s grand jury testimony helped reporters identify McElroy and then conclusively match up details of her life with those of “Witness 40.”I wish they detailed how.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:40 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
I wish the Gawker article had made it's point without saying "also witness 40 is a diagnosed cray-cray." Her mental illness is an unnecessary commentary. Plenty of mentally healthy people are liars. In fact, the probability is that liars are, on the whole, less likely to be mentally ill, since people in general are less likely to be mentally ill than not, an people are, you know, liars.
Sorry if this is derailing. It's just so frustrating.
posted by chonus at 12:43 PM on December 16, 2014 [52 favorites]
Sorry if this is derailing. It's just so frustrating.
posted by chonus at 12:43 PM on December 16, 2014 [52 favorites]
I agree, it's unfortunate that they chose that specific aspect of the lady to focus on as though it was "proof" in some way.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:46 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by poffin boffin at 12:46 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
I have no idea what it's like to be on a Grand Jury, but I can't help but think that it must have been obvious to at least SOME of the jurors that this witness was less than reliable. Were they allowed to say something about that? Or are they supposed to accept any and all testimony that the DA throws at them?
posted by monospace at 12:47 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by monospace at 12:47 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
I wish the Gawker article had made it's point without saying "also witness 40 is a diagnosed cray-cray."
I don't see the problem, she did sound pretty nutty, to the point where the DA's office (who were clearly throwing the grand jury) had to point out how unbelievable her testimony was.
The woman is clearly disturbed.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:48 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
I don't see the problem, she did sound pretty nutty, to the point where the DA's office (who were clearly throwing the grand jury) had to point out how unbelievable her testimony was.
The woman is clearly disturbed.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:48 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
Does the legal system have any duty to protect the identity of a witness? Would the DA's office be able to come out and say "yes that is witness 40?"
posted by codacorolla at 12:53 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by codacorolla at 12:53 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Does anyone know of another planet I can move to?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:55 PM on December 16, 2014 [16 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:55 PM on December 16, 2014 [16 favorites]
Seems to me that her diagnosed mental illness might actually be relevant to explaining her behavior in this case.
posted by monospace at 1:01 PM on December 16, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by monospace at 1:01 PM on December 16, 2014 [9 favorites]
I'm diagnosed bipolar (II) myself, and they way they reference her illness doesn't bother me. They note that she is not on medication. It would be problematic and offensive to me if there was a lazy insinuation that bipolar = not credible, but this is more specifically unmedicated bipolar + history of bizarre behavior + inconsistent and implausible story = not credible. And on preview, what monospace said.
posted by kitcat at 1:04 PM on December 16, 2014 [35 favorites]
posted by kitcat at 1:04 PM on December 16, 2014 [35 favorites]
I fully understand the desire to avoid stereotyping people and using demeaning language about the mentally ill in general.
Then again, every time this comes up, there is what feels like an insistence that we shouldn't evaluate a person's behavior based on their mental illness, and I'm not sure this gets us anywhere. People who have demonstrably less functional models of reality often act on beliefs that are fairly damaged, or talk about experiences that, objectively, did not take place. I'm not saying "don't believe the mentally ill", but I can't think of any way to read a long history of fabrications or extremely erratic behaviors as irrelevant to something like eyewitness testimony either. We should be humane in our understanding of this kind of behavior, but that doesn't mean we should ignore patterns where they exist. I think doing so is probably a disservice to people who are struggling, not a help to them.
posted by brennen at 1:04 PM on December 16, 2014 [23 favorites]
Then again, every time this comes up, there is what feels like an insistence that we shouldn't evaluate a person's behavior based on their mental illness, and I'm not sure this gets us anywhere. People who have demonstrably less functional models of reality often act on beliefs that are fairly damaged, or talk about experiences that, objectively, did not take place. I'm not saying "don't believe the mentally ill", but I can't think of any way to read a long history of fabrications or extremely erratic behaviors as irrelevant to something like eyewitness testimony either. We should be humane in our understanding of this kind of behavior, but that doesn't mean we should ignore patterns where they exist. I think doing so is probably a disservice to people who are struggling, not a help to them.
posted by brennen at 1:04 PM on December 16, 2014 [23 favorites]
On our local news—and yes, I know—this is being spun as "witnesses on both sides lied to the grand jury."
posted by Flexagon at 1:04 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Flexagon at 1:04 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
re: all the responses immediately above
Yeah, but, who cares why she lied? What difference does it make why she lied? It doesn't matter why she lied. All that matters is that she lied. The rest is just sensationalism and muddying the waters and "ooh crazy person that explains it." as if someone who weren't bi-polar wouldn't ever have lied.
posted by chonus at 1:05 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yeah, but, who cares why she lied? What difference does it make why she lied? It doesn't matter why she lied. All that matters is that she lied. The rest is just sensationalism and muddying the waters and "ooh crazy person that explains it." as if someone who weren't bi-polar wouldn't ever have lied.
posted by chonus at 1:05 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
I wish the Gawker article had made it's point without saying "also witness 40 is a diagnosed cray-cray."
There's a huge difference between pointing out that she has a long-term untreated mental illness and calling her "a diagnosed cray-cray."
posted by Etrigan at 1:05 PM on December 16, 2014 [24 favorites]
There's a huge difference between pointing out that she has a long-term untreated mental illness and calling her "a diagnosed cray-cray."
posted by Etrigan at 1:05 PM on December 16, 2014 [24 favorites]
Yeah, but, who cares why she lied? What difference does it make why she lied? It doesn't matter why she lied. All that matters is that she lied.
Well, I think it matters slightly if she was paid to lie, or if she simply has no grasp on reality.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:06 PM on December 16, 2014 [20 favorites]
Well, I think it matters slightly if she was paid to lie, or if she simply has no grasp on reality.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:06 PM on December 16, 2014 [20 favorites]
I wish the Gawker article had made it's point without saying "also witness 40 is a diagnosed cray-cray." Her mental illness is an unnecessary commentary. Plenty of mentally healthy people are liars. In fact, the probability is that liars are, on the whole, less likely to be mentally ill, since people in general are less likely to be mentally ill than not, an people are, you know, liars.
Well, she's diagnosed bipolar and has, according to the article, untreated for 25 years. It's quite possible that she suffers from delusions, and is therefore a further an unreliable narrator. Of course, it's more likely that she doesn't. However, the fact that she's diagnosed with an affliction that may affect her perception is worth mentioning if you're making the case that her testimony is questionable.
You are right to take exception, though. The author does not address her illness with enough depth-- s/he should explain why the witness's illness is potentially relevant or else the mention is indeed stigmatizing.
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:14 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
Well, she's diagnosed bipolar and has, according to the article, untreated for 25 years. It's quite possible that she suffers from delusions, and is therefore a further an unreliable narrator. Of course, it's more likely that she doesn't. However, the fact that she's diagnosed with an affliction that may affect her perception is worth mentioning if you're making the case that her testimony is questionable.
You are right to take exception, though. The author does not address her illness with enough depth-- s/he should explain why the witness's illness is potentially relevant or else the mention is indeed stigmatizing.
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:14 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
Chris Hayes: Ferguson: Was 'Witness 40' even there?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:15 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:15 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Seems to me that her diagnosed mental illness might actually be relevant to explaining her behavior in this case.
Also, you know, the horrific racism.
posted by Justinian at 1:17 PM on December 16, 2014 [6 favorites]
Also, you know, the horrific racism.
posted by Justinian at 1:17 PM on December 16, 2014 [6 favorites]
Does anyone know of another planet I can move to?
Canada?
posted by Behemoth at 1:17 PM on December 16, 2014
Canada?
posted by Behemoth at 1:17 PM on December 16, 2014
This is interesting because I remember us discussing Witness 40 in this thread. We kind of thought SOMETHING weird was going on with their testimony.
posted by SkylitDrawl at 1:20 PM on December 16, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by SkylitDrawl at 1:20 PM on December 16, 2014 [6 favorites]
Wait. Wait.
"In the face of McElroy's allegations, the Kirkwood Police Department fired back at her. Cops reported that they investigated her claim and determined that "we have no record of any contact with Mrs. McElroy in regards to Shawn Hornbeck.""
Now I'm confused - do I trust her or do I trust the police in this situation? It's not as if police haven't demonstrated a history of CYA tactics when dealing with information that tends to discredit them. On the other hand... This seems to be some sort of pattern with her, so it certainly could be false (I am certainly on the side to see this as bullshit from her).
What would be interesting is to find some black people she claims to have talked to - people who she ended up visiting in restaurants and shit. Hell - is there any documented connection to her and Hornbeck besides her say so (whether or not she actually went to the police - if there wasn't *any* connection, then it's easy to falsify the rest of her story)...
posted by symbioid at 1:21 PM on December 16, 2014
"In the face of McElroy's allegations, the Kirkwood Police Department fired back at her. Cops reported that they investigated her claim and determined that "we have no record of any contact with Mrs. McElroy in regards to Shawn Hornbeck.""
Now I'm confused - do I trust her or do I trust the police in this situation? It's not as if police haven't demonstrated a history of CYA tactics when dealing with information that tends to discredit them. On the other hand... This seems to be some sort of pattern with her, so it certainly could be false (I am certainly on the side to see this as bullshit from her).
What would be interesting is to find some black people she claims to have talked to - people who she ended up visiting in restaurants and shit. Hell - is there any documented connection to her and Hornbeck besides her say so (whether or not she actually went to the police - if there wasn't *any* connection, then it's easy to falsify the rest of her story)...
posted by symbioid at 1:21 PM on December 16, 2014
On our local news—and yes, I know—this is being spun as "witnesses on both sides lied to the grand jury."
In all fairness, witnesses on both sides did lie, including Brown's friend, who eventually admitted as much. This is one instance which has been rightfully highlighted. I have no idea which side was less honest, or which lies were more influential. I say this as someone who thinks that Wilson should have been indicted.
As for McElroy, I hope she goes to jail - I'm sure she broke some laws about false testimony or whatever. I could not be more disgusted with her behavior.
posted by Edgewise at 1:22 PM on December 16, 2014 [5 favorites]
In all fairness, witnesses on both sides did lie, including Brown's friend, who eventually admitted as much. This is one instance which has been rightfully highlighted. I have no idea which side was less honest, or which lies were more influential. I say this as someone who thinks that Wilson should have been indicted.
As for McElroy, I hope she goes to jail - I'm sure she broke some laws about false testimony or whatever. I could not be more disgusted with her behavior.
posted by Edgewise at 1:22 PM on December 16, 2014 [5 favorites]
They make a point of the fact that her bipolar (which I also have!) is untreated which I think makes a big difference and actually does call her credibility into question. I can attest that, when I am not being treated properly, I am less credible on some issues. The issue of treatment and her history of telling lies to the authorities makes a big difference.
Also, this whole fucking God damn mess was depressing enough, and now tied into that is yet another indictment of the health care system in general and the way we in this country treat mental health in particular? Jesus Christ, this whole terrible horrible tragic situation (and the lack of justice for Michael Brown) has been made EVEN WORSE by yet another group of people for whom we aren't caring properly.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 1:22 PM on December 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
Also, this whole fucking God damn mess was depressing enough, and now tied into that is yet another indictment of the health care system in general and the way we in this country treat mental health in particular? Jesus Christ, this whole terrible horrible tragic situation (and the lack of justice for Michael Brown) has been made EVEN WORSE by yet another group of people for whom we aren't caring properly.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 1:22 PM on December 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
In all fairness, witnesses on both sides did lie, including Brown's friend, who eventually admitted as much.
Hey, you got a link for, would love to read it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:27 PM on December 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
The URL of the Gawker article has the slug: "darren-wilsons-key-witness-was-bipolar-racist-liar".
That suggests to me that the original title of the article might have been really inappropriate in lumping bipolarity along with racism and dishonesty as a list of vile character traits, and somebody might have pointed this out and had it changed.
posted by edheil at 1:34 PM on December 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
That suggests to me that the original title of the article might have been really inappropriate in lumping bipolarity along with racism and dishonesty as a list of vile character traits, and somebody might have pointed this out and had it changed.
posted by edheil at 1:34 PM on December 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
The URL of the Gawker article has the slug: "darren-wilsons-key-witness-was-bipolar-racist-liar".
Thank you. I meant to include that in my last comment to explain more of what upset me about the Gawker thing.
posted by chonus at 1:40 PM on December 16, 2014
Thank you. I meant to include that in my last comment to explain more of what upset me about the Gawker thing.
posted by chonus at 1:40 PM on December 16, 2014
The Gawker URL title -- "http://gawker.com/darren-wilsons-key-witness-was-bipolar-racist-liar..."-- is the exact wrong way to say it.
But I think that the actual description in the Gawker article introduced the same info in a pretty reasonable way -- "Witness 40," identified as 45-year-old Sandra McElroy, has a documented history of racist remarks, criminal behavior, and mental illness."
posted by desuetude at 1:45 PM on December 16, 2014
But I think that the actual description in the Gawker article introduced the same info in a pretty reasonable way -- "Witness 40," identified as 45-year-old Sandra McElroy, has a documented history of racist remarks, criminal behavior, and mental illness."
posted by desuetude at 1:45 PM on December 16, 2014
Here's a link that lists multiple witness who had credbility issues for both sides
CNN:One challenge for Ferguson grand jury: Some witnesses' credibility
posted by roguewraith at 1:49 PM on December 16, 2014
CNN:One challenge for Ferguson grand jury: Some witnesses' credibility
posted by roguewraith at 1:49 PM on December 16, 2014
In all fairness, witnesses on both sides did lie, including Brown's friend, who eventually admitted as much. This is one instance which has been rightfully highlighted. I have no idea which side was less honest, or which lies were more influential. I say this as someone who thinks that Wilson should have been indicted.
As for McElroy, I hope she goes to jail - I'm sure she broke some laws about false testimony or whatever. I could not be more disgusted with her behavior.
I hope she gets treatment. There are already lots of people in prison who almost certainly wouldn't have ended up jailed if they could only get proper mental health care before they came to a moment of crisis.
And the fact that more than one witness may have lied just underscores yet again how utterly, disastrously broken the criminal justice system is, especially in the respect of addressing its own systemic problems. Of course everything is going to go wrong when the state's employees, from the police up to the district attorney, blatantly flout the responsibilities of their office. We have legal procedures and rules for a reason, but they cannot function properly if law enforcement officers insist upon subverting the process of justice.
posted by clockzero at 1:53 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
As for McElroy, I hope she goes to jail - I'm sure she broke some laws about false testimony or whatever. I could not be more disgusted with her behavior.
I hope she gets treatment. There are already lots of people in prison who almost certainly wouldn't have ended up jailed if they could only get proper mental health care before they came to a moment of crisis.
And the fact that more than one witness may have lied just underscores yet again how utterly, disastrously broken the criminal justice system is, especially in the respect of addressing its own systemic problems. Of course everything is going to go wrong when the state's employees, from the police up to the district attorney, blatantly flout the responsibilities of their office. We have legal procedures and rules for a reason, but they cannot function properly if law enforcement officers insist upon subverting the process of justice.
posted by clockzero at 1:53 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm not entirely sure that her history of mental illness is relevant but as a supposed eye witness it's probably important that a witness doesn't have a whole host of question marks about her reliability as a witness, being a untreated manic-depressive probably isn't enough but that plus a problem with her memory as a result of an accident, a consistently racist and pro-police social media presence all kinda indicate that she isn't the most reliable witness (if we assume that she was even there which seems in doubt).
I think it's very fair to question veracity of her statements especially since they seem completely contradicted by other eye witness testimony. It's quite possible that she has a desire to be a part of a very high profile media event by proxy
posted by vuron at 1:55 PM on December 16, 2014
I think it's very fair to question veracity of her statements especially since they seem completely contradicted by other eye witness testimony. It's quite possible that she has a desire to be a part of a very high profile media event by proxy
posted by vuron at 1:55 PM on December 16, 2014
People who have demonstrably less functional models of reality often act on beliefs that are fairly damaged, or talk about experiences that, objectively, did not take place.
...
Well, she's diagnosed bipolar and has, according to the article, untreated for 25 years. It's quite possible that she suffers from delusions, and is therefore a further an unreliable narrator.
People seem to be mixing up diagnosises here in a way which I, as a clinician who treats people with severe mental illness, find incredibly frustrating and inaccurate.
While a subset of people with Bipolar Disorder have hallucinations/delusions during their manic state (usually referred to as "psychotic features") they routinely are as in touch with reality as the rest of us - which is to say middling, taking in account our endemic perceptual and memory errors.
Bipolar does not usually present with delusions as we define delusions in the field; false cultural beliefs that one holds are not considered delusions, because then we could diagnose everyone who improperly uses Occam's Razor and the world would be a very different place.
Bipolar disorder is distinct from Schizophrenia, which is the mental illness many people seem to be acting as if she has. That's the one known for its disorganized thinking, hallucinations, and delusions. That's also the majority of my clients. They have differing capabilities and tendencies toward lying, and lie for different reasons. Often their lying behavior is distinct from their mental illness - that is, one is not chosen and disrupts their lives, and the other is chosen and often makes their lives easier.
Their knowledge, perspective, and beliefs are often discounted by people because they have a mental illness. In some cases, this is accurate - depending on the client and the stated beliefs. In others it is not. Claiming in a blanket manner that if one is diagnosed with anything one should be assumed to have the most stigmatized of Schizophrenic symptoms and thus be dismissed out of hand and not taken seriously has materially damaged the lives of many of my clients, who have learned that people disregard and disrespect them as a matter of course.
Stop being part of the problem.
If you want to actually know people like my clients, take a class or two on the subject. There are day programs in almost every city; see if you can volunteer. Treat them with the respect and regard they deserve - which is LOTS. You might learn something.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:58 PM on December 16, 2014 [47 favorites]
...
Well, she's diagnosed bipolar and has, according to the article, untreated for 25 years. It's quite possible that she suffers from delusions, and is therefore a further an unreliable narrator.
People seem to be mixing up diagnosises here in a way which I, as a clinician who treats people with severe mental illness, find incredibly frustrating and inaccurate.
While a subset of people with Bipolar Disorder have hallucinations/delusions during their manic state (usually referred to as "psychotic features") they routinely are as in touch with reality as the rest of us - which is to say middling, taking in account our endemic perceptual and memory errors.
Bipolar does not usually present with delusions as we define delusions in the field; false cultural beliefs that one holds are not considered delusions, because then we could diagnose everyone who improperly uses Occam's Razor and the world would be a very different place.
Bipolar disorder is distinct from Schizophrenia, which is the mental illness many people seem to be acting as if she has. That's the one known for its disorganized thinking, hallucinations, and delusions. That's also the majority of my clients. They have differing capabilities and tendencies toward lying, and lie for different reasons. Often their lying behavior is distinct from their mental illness - that is, one is not chosen and disrupts their lives, and the other is chosen and often makes their lives easier.
Their knowledge, perspective, and beliefs are often discounted by people because they have a mental illness. In some cases, this is accurate - depending on the client and the stated beliefs. In others it is not. Claiming in a blanket manner that if one is diagnosed with anything one should be assumed to have the most stigmatized of Schizophrenic symptoms and thus be dismissed out of hand and not taken seriously has materially damaged the lives of many of my clients, who have learned that people disregard and disrespect them as a matter of course.
Stop being part of the problem.
If you want to actually know people like my clients, take a class or two on the subject. There are day programs in almost every city; see if you can volunteer. Treat them with the respect and regard they deserve - which is LOTS. You might learn something.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:58 PM on December 16, 2014 [47 favorites]
In theory, it's the job of jurors to evaluate for themselves whether witnesses are credible or not.
I'm pretty sure that the (implicit) job of the jurors in this case was something different.
posted by allthinky at 1:59 PM on December 16, 2014
I'm pretty sure that the (implicit) job of the jurors in this case was something different.
posted by allthinky at 1:59 PM on December 16, 2014
Wasn't Witness 40 clearly the least reliable witness participating? It seems like a travesty that the prosecution didn't apply a filter here, but I'm pretty sure in the post-grand-jury internet debate most references to this witness's testimony came from the pro-indictment side.
posted by leopard at 2:00 PM on December 16, 2014
posted by leopard at 2:00 PM on December 16, 2014
I remember in his press conference McCulloch pretty much referred to this woman's testimony directly as justification for disregarding the other witness testimony: "some witnesses said that Brown stopped and put his hands up before being shot, others [evidently 40 & Wilson] said that Brown turned and charged towards the officer like a crazed demon."
posted by Flashman at 2:13 PM on December 16, 2014
posted by Flashman at 2:13 PM on December 16, 2014
Deoridhe, I don't know if people are suggesting that she's so much delusional which is as you say not typically a symptom of being bipolar. What is quite possible is that she's prone to a certain degree of grandiosity while being in a manic state. Combined with a racist outlook on the world and I could totally see a "honest" citizen stepping up with a story to help out a white police officer she feels is being unfairly targeted by black "thugs".
posted by vuron at 2:13 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by vuron at 2:13 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Focusing on Witness 40 is missing the forest for the trees. The problem was the entire grand jury fiasco not one garbage witness.
posted by Justinian at 2:17 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:17 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
This liar needs to be jailed for perjury.
posted by Catblack at 2:20 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Catblack at 2:20 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Treat them with the respect and regard they deserve - which is LOTS. You might learn something.
posted by Deoridhe
THIS!!!!
I cannot express how much this is so bloody awfully true.
What is critical about mental illness is the ways in which the person suffering from them copes with the problem.
Way too often, as soon as a person is "diagnosed" (and I don't mean formally, just labeled as 'crazy' by other people for the way they are acting), everything they do is automatically argued as 'crazy' and people will just jump as high as they can to get away from them, or will immediately start to talk over them or try to "correct" their behavior.
Of course, the problem with this whole situation is that the DA and the police are very much taking advantage of this persons mental illness. Most of the"tricks" "interview methodology" that the police are trained to use to coax confessions out of suspects AND witnesses is the use of leading statements and questions. Even "normal" people fall for these things, again and again, because aside from the police and psychologists/psychiatrists (and marketers), most people are completely unaware of just how fallible your cognition can be, especially when there is an ulterior intent by the interviewer.
I do not doubt that Witness 40 believes what they testified. The problem is whether they actually know where they got the information. Was it from what they saw and remembered? Or was it the "altered" memory that came after several hours of being interviewed by the police and DA, retelling and winnowing down the details (and having the details filled in during each subsequent retelling), to the point where the witnesses testimony corroborated Officer Wilson's story.
Also, the fact that, as far as I have seen reported, Witness 40 is pretty much the only witness from the Grand Jury that did match up closely with the testimony from Officer Wilson. I may be mistaken, but that to me throws a red flag on the whole thing. Out of how many witnesses? Yeah, that right there is a major freaking problem.
posted by daq at 2:31 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Deoridhe
THIS!!!!
I cannot express how much this is so bloody awfully true.
What is critical about mental illness is the ways in which the person suffering from them copes with the problem.
Way too often, as soon as a person is "diagnosed" (and I don't mean formally, just labeled as 'crazy' by other people for the way they are acting), everything they do is automatically argued as 'crazy' and people will just jump as high as they can to get away from them, or will immediately start to talk over them or try to "correct" their behavior.
Of course, the problem with this whole situation is that the DA and the police are very much taking advantage of this persons mental illness. Most of the
I do not doubt that Witness 40 believes what they testified. The problem is whether they actually know where they got the information. Was it from what they saw and remembered? Or was it the "altered" memory that came after several hours of being interviewed by the police and DA, retelling and winnowing down the details (and having the details filled in during each subsequent retelling), to the point where the witnesses testimony corroborated Officer Wilson's story.
Also, the fact that, as far as I have seen reported, Witness 40 is pretty much the only witness from the Grand Jury that did match up closely with the testimony from Officer Wilson. I may be mistaken, but that to me throws a red flag on the whole thing. Out of how many witnesses? Yeah, that right there is a major freaking problem.
posted by daq at 2:31 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
I'm super not okay with us cheerfully joining in doxing a witness, even if she is super shitty.
posted by corb at 2:42 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 2:42 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
I have no idea what it's like to be on a Grand Jury, but I can't help but think that it must have been obvious to at least SOME of the jurors that this witness was less than reliable. Were they allowed to say something about that?
Yeah... I seriously doubt she in particular influenced the grand jury. In the other thread I linked to her testimony (here and here). The prosecutors, who took it easy on most the witnesses, were actually pretty hard on her (telling her repeatedly not to "lie" to them), and it had to have been super-clear to the jury that she was completely unreliable.
posted by torticat at 2:42 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Yeah... I seriously doubt she in particular influenced the grand jury. In the other thread I linked to her testimony (here and here). The prosecutors, who took it easy on most the witnesses, were actually pretty hard on her (telling her repeatedly not to "lie" to them), and it had to have been super-clear to the jury that she was completely unreliable.
posted by torticat at 2:42 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Deoridhe, I don't know if people are suggesting that she's so much delusional which is as you say not typically a symptom of being bipolar. What is quite possible is that she's prone to a certain degree of grandiosity while being in a manic state. Combined with a racist outlook on the world and I could totally see a "honest" citizen stepping up with a story to help out a white police officer she feels is being unfairly targeted by black "thugs".
Given we have no evidence she is in a manic state, it is questionable at best and prejudicial at worst to suggest she must be because we don't like how she acts and what she said. It's also a gross misuse of psychology and diagnosises, which are no where near as clear-cut as people like to claim.
I agree that the narrative you posit makes sense, but it's also a narrative someone without a diagnosis might fall into. People are tribal and reactive to shared cultural beliefs, and none of that should qualify for a basis for a diagnosis at this time (arguments about whether the DSM is conceptually fucked belong in another place and time; right now it's what we use).
As for whether people are suggesting she's delusional, I requote:
"Well, she's diagnosed bipolar and has, according to the article, untreated for 25 years. It's quite possible that she suffers from delusions, and is therefore a further an unreliable narrator."
I maintain it is improbable she suffers from delusions, not quite possible.
posted by Deoridhe at 2:53 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Given we have no evidence she is in a manic state, it is questionable at best and prejudicial at worst to suggest she must be because we don't like how she acts and what she said. It's also a gross misuse of psychology and diagnosises, which are no where near as clear-cut as people like to claim.
I agree that the narrative you posit makes sense, but it's also a narrative someone without a diagnosis might fall into. People are tribal and reactive to shared cultural beliefs, and none of that should qualify for a basis for a diagnosis at this time (arguments about whether the DSM is conceptually fucked belong in another place and time; right now it's what we use).
As for whether people are suggesting she's delusional, I requote:
"Well, she's diagnosed bipolar and has, according to the article, untreated for 25 years. It's quite possible that she suffers from delusions, and is therefore a further an unreliable narrator."
I maintain it is improbable she suffers from delusions, not quite possible.
posted by Deoridhe at 2:53 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
I'm super not okay with us cheerfully joining in doxing a witness, even if she is super shitty.
I think labeling it and dismissing it as a simple doxing is a cynical take. This is a person with a history of awful behavior that helped tank a very important case, and it's important to identify who they are so we can see her previous activities and behavior that might give some insight into what happened in the courtroom a few months ago.
posted by mathowie at 2:57 PM on December 16, 2014 [25 favorites]
I think labeling it and dismissing it as a simple doxing is a cynical take. This is a person with a history of awful behavior that helped tank a very important case, and it's important to identify who they are so we can see her previous activities and behavior that might give some insight into what happened in the courtroom a few months ago.
posted by mathowie at 2:57 PM on December 16, 2014 [25 favorites]
If you look at her testimony in full including the evidence like her journal it seems pretty obvious she's a lying liar not a delusional deluded person. The journal is clearly performative and not the type of thing you'd write for your own use.
posted by Justinian at 2:58 PM on December 16, 2014 [14 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:58 PM on December 16, 2014 [14 favorites]
Doxxing is an act of aggression intended to punish somebody for public participation. This is not that.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:02 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:02 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
Here is a link to the journal entires from the New York Times in case you want to see them but The Smoking Gun makes you feel slimy and bad.
posted by Justinian at 3:05 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 3:05 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm super not okay with us cheerfully joining in doxxing discussing a witness racist perjurer in an extremely controversial grand jury decision regarding police violence that many believe was wrongfully determined due to the race of the victim and the perpetrator, even if she is super shitty.
FTFY
posted by The Notorious SRD at 3:22 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
FTFY
posted by The Notorious SRD at 3:22 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
I'm super not okay with us cheerfully joining in doxing a witness apparent criminal, even if she is super shitty.
FTFY. They actually have a world for people who aren't OK doxing criminals. They call them accessories.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 3:31 PM on December 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
FTFY. They actually have a world for people who aren't OK doxing criminals. They call them accessories.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 3:31 PM on December 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
You're pushing this beyond the bounds of reason. Chelsea Manning, for example, is undeniably a criminal. But I wouldn't think you would apply the same logic to her case.
posted by Justinian at 3:35 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 3:35 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think the extra problem is that this woman has been identified by "scouring divorce records" and such to find someone who appears similar to Witness 40. We have no idea, currently, if this even IS Witness 40.
posted by corb at 3:39 PM on December 16, 2014
posted by corb at 3:39 PM on December 16, 2014
I would assume a doxxing argument should move to Metatalk though.
(this is not a request. Please for the love of god don't do it.)
posted by Justinian at 3:41 PM on December 16, 2014
(this is not a request. Please for the love of god don't do it.)
posted by Justinian at 3:41 PM on December 16, 2014
I think the extra problem is that this woman has been identified by "scouring divorce records" and such to find someone who appears similar to Witness 40. We have no idea, currently, if this even IS Witness 40.
posted by corb at 3:39 PM on December 16 [+] [!]
Sandra McElroy confirmed she was indeed Witness 40 earlier this afternoon.
posted by The Notorious SRD at 3:45 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 3:39 PM on December 16 [+] [!]
Sandra McElroy confirmed she was indeed Witness 40 earlier this afternoon.
posted by The Notorious SRD at 3:45 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Don't think of it as doxxing; think of it as ex post facto vetting.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:50 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:50 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
Ah okay, thanks The Notorious. Objection withdrawn.
posted by corb at 3:51 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 3:51 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
I think it's time to bring back good old "surely this":
Surely this...
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 4:32 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
Surely this...
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 4:32 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
> In fact, the probability is that liars are, on the whole, less likely to be mentally ill, since people in general are less likely to be mentally ill than not, an people are, you know, liars.
This reasoning is totally incorrect from start to end. You might as well argue that albinos are less likely to be liars, since people in general are less likely to be albinos.
There's also the issue that witness 40 might be saying things that are incorrect, but still not lying, because they believe those incorrect statements.
There are many specific mental illnesses whose very symptoms involve incorrect statements or beliefs - schizophrenia, psychopathy, megalomania, bipolarity even. It's perfectly rational to look at someone's mental health status before evaluating their statements for truth or falsity.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 4:37 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
This reasoning is totally incorrect from start to end. You might as well argue that albinos are less likely to be liars, since people in general are less likely to be albinos.
There's also the issue that witness 40 might be saying things that are incorrect, but still not lying, because they believe those incorrect statements.
There are many specific mental illnesses whose very symptoms involve incorrect statements or beliefs - schizophrenia, psychopathy, megalomania, bipolarity even. It's perfectly rational to look at someone's mental health status before evaluating their statements for truth or falsity.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 4:37 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
I recall someone at Balloon Juice pointing out Witness 40 as an obvious liar the day the documents were released. What it's really about is the prosecutor -- no one who isn't trying to deepsix a indictment would put a transparent perjurer like that into a grand jury hearing.
posted by tavella at 4:37 PM on December 16, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by tavella at 4:37 PM on December 16, 2014 [11 favorites]
Exactly what tavella said. The fact that this was part of the grand jury is incredibly damning. That's why I don't think it's missing the forest for the trees to focus on this. "Time for my random drive to Floris[s]ant" is transparently bogus, just as Wilson's testimony is (almost) transparently reverse-engineered to provide a legal excuse for killing Michael Brown. What Wilson described is at least possible, but that "journal entry" by #witness40 is a sick joke.
posted by uosuaq at 5:27 PM on December 16, 2014
posted by uosuaq at 5:27 PM on December 16, 2014
There are many specific mental illnesses whose very symptoms involve incorrect statements or beliefs - schizophrenia, psychopathy, megalomania, bipolarity even. It's perfectly rational to look at someone's mental health status before evaluating their statements for truth or falsity.
No. "Incorrect statements or beliefs" is not synonymous with delusional; people can have beliefs that might be proven to be incorrect (my aforementioned misuse of Occam's Razor, for example) and still not be considered delusional. Most people believe their memories are good, and pretty much all of us are wrong. A delusion is a subset of provably false beliefs with very and necessarily narrow bounds.
Schizophrenia is the only disorder you correctly identified as being associated with delusions, but in my experience with my many clients with the disorder, the delusions do not work the way most people expect. They are far more personal and self-referential, and if they are associated with others it is usually in a paranoid sense. Most of the delusions can be fairly easily spotted through some careful questioning, and my client would not do research in order to create the delusions as delusions are by and large unchosen (though different people tend to have different types of delusion, and one can become accustomed to how ones clients usually are delusional and what departs from the baseline).
Psychopathy (aka Antisocial Personality Disorder in the last two DSMs) is not at all associated with inaccurate or false beliefs. LYING, yes. Delusions, no.
Meglomania is no longer a diagnosis, and hasn't been since I think the DSM-III, which is about twenty years ago. I cut my teeth on the DSM IV, and the DSM V came out last year. The closest equivalent is Narcissistic Personality Disorder (which may no longer be a Thing; I haven't delved deeply into the DSM V's personality disorder section, and I know they moved stuff around) and insofar as it's associated with inaccurate or false beliefs, they are all self-serving and most likely wouldn't rise to the level of delusion.
Bipolarity was never a thing. Bipolar Disorder is a mood disorder, not a thought disorder, and thus is usually not associated with delusions of any kind, aside from the aforementioned Bipolar with psychotic features.
I don't know what you're psychological training is, but you at the very least need a DSM refresher and you might want to refrain from making claims about people with severe mental illnesses until you've gotten up to date on the field.
posted by Deoridhe at 5:32 PM on December 16, 2014 [13 favorites]
No. "Incorrect statements or beliefs" is not synonymous with delusional; people can have beliefs that might be proven to be incorrect (my aforementioned misuse of Occam's Razor, for example) and still not be considered delusional. Most people believe their memories are good, and pretty much all of us are wrong. A delusion is a subset of provably false beliefs with very and necessarily narrow bounds.
Schizophrenia is the only disorder you correctly identified as being associated with delusions, but in my experience with my many clients with the disorder, the delusions do not work the way most people expect. They are far more personal and self-referential, and if they are associated with others it is usually in a paranoid sense. Most of the delusions can be fairly easily spotted through some careful questioning, and my client would not do research in order to create the delusions as delusions are by and large unchosen (though different people tend to have different types of delusion, and one can become accustomed to how ones clients usually are delusional and what departs from the baseline).
Psychopathy (aka Antisocial Personality Disorder in the last two DSMs) is not at all associated with inaccurate or false beliefs. LYING, yes. Delusions, no.
Meglomania is no longer a diagnosis, and hasn't been since I think the DSM-III, which is about twenty years ago. I cut my teeth on the DSM IV, and the DSM V came out last year. The closest equivalent is Narcissistic Personality Disorder (which may no longer be a Thing; I haven't delved deeply into the DSM V's personality disorder section, and I know they moved stuff around) and insofar as it's associated with inaccurate or false beliefs, they are all self-serving and most likely wouldn't rise to the level of delusion.
Bipolarity was never a thing. Bipolar Disorder is a mood disorder, not a thought disorder, and thus is usually not associated with delusions of any kind, aside from the aforementioned Bipolar with psychotic features.
I don't know what you're psychological training is, but you at the very least need a DSM refresher and you might want to refrain from making claims about people with severe mental illnesses until you've gotten up to date on the field.
posted by Deoridhe at 5:32 PM on December 16, 2014 [13 favorites]
This might call for a separate thread or AskMe or something, but I thought people with bipolar disorder often had what I would call "delusional" beliefs (scare quotes to indicate a layperson's usage) during the manic phase, such as wildly overestimating how much money they have in the bank or whether Spielberg has already committed to their screenplay or whatever. Can you elucidate, Deoridhe? Is that the "with psychotic features" variety? (I did just check Wikipedia and it says that "approximately 50% of those with bipolar disorder experience delusions or hallucinations".)
I'm really bordering on a derail here, because I don't think Witness 40 lied because she honestly believed she was there and saw what she put in the journal entry. I think she's a bullshitter with a lot of problems (racism, for starters) who did what she did for reasons that don't come from a DSM-IV diagnosis (unless "fucked-up racist, not otherwise specified" is in there).
posted by uosuaq at 5:51 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm really bordering on a derail here, because I don't think Witness 40 lied because she honestly believed she was there and saw what she put in the journal entry. I think she's a bullshitter with a lot of problems (racism, for starters) who did what she did for reasons that don't come from a DSM-IV diagnosis (unless "fucked-up racist, not otherwise specified" is in there).
posted by uosuaq at 5:51 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
What it's really about is the prosecutor -- no one who isn't trying to deepsix a indictment would put a transparent perjurer like that into a grand jury hearing.
I think it was part of that whole thing where the prosecutor said he was going to put ALL the evidence in front of the grand jury, credible or not, and let the jury decide (which, as was discussed at length the other thread, was a highly questionable approach anyway).
In the hearing, or hearings actually because Witness 40 testified twice, the prosecution took her testimony apart. I mean they proved she was lying at the time (by presenting a map, for example, and phone records, that showed her account of her movements couldn't possibly have been true). They got her to recant half her story. It was very, very unlike the way they treated the other witnesses.
What I thought was interesting was that her testimony, which matched Wilson's account, contained a lot of detail that I don't think had been leaked at the time she testified. Minor stuff, but still details that the public didn't know about Wilson's story until all the GJ documents were published. I suppose it would be too ridiculous/conspiracy-theoryish to wonder if she got that from someone in the PD, but it was weird.
posted by torticat at 6:46 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
I think it was part of that whole thing where the prosecutor said he was going to put ALL the evidence in front of the grand jury, credible or not, and let the jury decide (which, as was discussed at length the other thread, was a highly questionable approach anyway).
In the hearing, or hearings actually because Witness 40 testified twice, the prosecution took her testimony apart. I mean they proved she was lying at the time (by presenting a map, for example, and phone records, that showed her account of her movements couldn't possibly have been true). They got her to recant half her story. It was very, very unlike the way they treated the other witnesses.
What I thought was interesting was that her testimony, which matched Wilson's account, contained a lot of detail that I don't think had been leaked at the time she testified. Minor stuff, but still details that the public didn't know about Wilson's story until all the GJ documents were published. I suppose it would be too ridiculous/conspiracy-theoryish to wonder if she got that from someone in the PD, but it was weird.
posted by torticat at 6:46 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
CNN started #AskACop on twitter. It's the bucket of fuel on the fire you'd expect.
posted by cmfletcher at 7:12 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by cmfletcher at 7:12 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
This might call for a separate thread or AskMe or something, but I thought people with bipolar disorder often had what I would call "delusional" beliefs (scare quotes to indicate a layperson's usage) during the manic phase, such as wildly overestimating how much money they have in the bank or whether Spielberg has already committed to their screenplay or whatever. Can you elucidate, Deoridhe? Is that the "with psychotic features" variety? (I did just check Wikipedia and it says that "approximately 50% of those with bipolar disorder experience delusions or hallucinations".)
So, I'm speaking from the perspective of a diagnosed-by-11-psychiatrists severe Type I (manic-biased) ultra-rapid-cycling bipolar person* who spent his late teens and early 20s unsuccessfully treated and has made something of a study of the illness.
On delusions: never anything abjectly wrong, but I couldn't begin to count the number of times in a manic episode that I thought if I could *just convince* people of this one point in an argument, or *just convince this one investor* for a project, everything would snowball and lead to me, as I often shouted at the walls of my apartment, storming over the Earth with my armies.
At no point would I have ever believed anything directly counter-factual like 2 + 2 = 5, or that I was able to walk through walls, etc. The delusional aspect was more akin to the rationalizations of a severe gambling addict - you get so carried away with your emotions that your expectations and self-awareness are pushed well outside the realm of the feasible, while still remaining technically possible. Barely. Just one good streak and you can start to pay off some of your debts and...
The sole exception to the not believing anything overtly counter-factual was my one experience with a full-blown psychotic episode due to a badly botched diagnosis by my first psychiatrist - he met me in a depressive phase, and despite a family history of bipolar disorder did the one thing you are never, ever supposed to do in that situation: prescribed a generic anti-depressant (Celexa). A bipolar person's brain, you see, responds to depressive phases by tripling the number of serotonin receptors on the hypothalamus. There's a consequent boom and bust cycle which is what ultimately causes the cycling between moods. Celexa and related drugs are known as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors - meaning they won't let the neurohormone which in overabundance produces mania to cycle back out. 48 hours later I was holding extended conversations with several people who did not actually exist, and 50 hours later I was rolling on the floor of my bedroom shrieking in terror as demons poured out of the walls and began violently disemboweling me. Degree of psychosis is measured in terms of how many senses are involved in the hallucination, and in this case the answer was everything but taste - I could see, hear, and feel them ripping me open and worst of all smell the mix of bile and shit when my intestines were punctured.
...when I came back down I immediately threw away the bottle, started researching as if my life depended on it, and after 10 years, countless drug cocktail combinations, 8 therapists and 11 psychiatrists with no good results, my ex-wife who wrote drug-combination queries at a pharmaceutical research company identified a likely treatment and ... boom. 95% successfully treated, a job, a life, a not posting angry misanthropic/misogynistic bullshit on Metafilter 24/7. My emotional maturation, halted cold at 16, began stumbling forward for the first time in a decade. As an added bonus I got to keep my brain (many bipolar people quit treatment because of severe cognitive impairment that accompanies many of the medications), so to say that I lucked out is putting it mildly: the suicide rate for bipolar people of any diagnosis is 5x higher than average. For my particular diagnosis there are no statistics that I can find but it is likely absurdly high.
At any rate, hopefully this clears up confusion for some people - emotional disorders are not like anything on the schiz spectrum, because there's almost never confusion as to what is actually real or factual... just a lot of delusional-in-the-colloquial-sense expectations of how situations are going to pan out or people are going to react. The best way to handle such a person is gently and with very, very thick emotional gloves.
*This specific diagnosis of bipolar is, based on my current understanding, the most extreme and difficult to treat that exists.
posted by Ryvar at 7:19 PM on December 16, 2014 [33 favorites]
So, I'm speaking from the perspective of a diagnosed-by-11-psychiatrists severe Type I (manic-biased) ultra-rapid-cycling bipolar person* who spent his late teens and early 20s unsuccessfully treated and has made something of a study of the illness.
On delusions: never anything abjectly wrong, but I couldn't begin to count the number of times in a manic episode that I thought if I could *just convince* people of this one point in an argument, or *just convince this one investor* for a project, everything would snowball and lead to me, as I often shouted at the walls of my apartment, storming over the Earth with my armies.
At no point would I have ever believed anything directly counter-factual like 2 + 2 = 5, or that I was able to walk through walls, etc. The delusional aspect was more akin to the rationalizations of a severe gambling addict - you get so carried away with your emotions that your expectations and self-awareness are pushed well outside the realm of the feasible, while still remaining technically possible. Barely. Just one good streak and you can start to pay off some of your debts and...
The sole exception to the not believing anything overtly counter-factual was my one experience with a full-blown psychotic episode due to a badly botched diagnosis by my first psychiatrist - he met me in a depressive phase, and despite a family history of bipolar disorder did the one thing you are never, ever supposed to do in that situation: prescribed a generic anti-depressant (Celexa). A bipolar person's brain, you see, responds to depressive phases by tripling the number of serotonin receptors on the hypothalamus. There's a consequent boom and bust cycle which is what ultimately causes the cycling between moods. Celexa and related drugs are known as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors - meaning they won't let the neurohormone which in overabundance produces mania to cycle back out. 48 hours later I was holding extended conversations with several people who did not actually exist, and 50 hours later I was rolling on the floor of my bedroom shrieking in terror as demons poured out of the walls and began violently disemboweling me. Degree of psychosis is measured in terms of how many senses are involved in the hallucination, and in this case the answer was everything but taste - I could see, hear, and feel them ripping me open and worst of all smell the mix of bile and shit when my intestines were punctured.
...when I came back down I immediately threw away the bottle, started researching as if my life depended on it, and after 10 years, countless drug cocktail combinations, 8 therapists and 11 psychiatrists with no good results, my ex-wife who wrote drug-combination queries at a pharmaceutical research company identified a likely treatment and ... boom. 95% successfully treated, a job, a life, a not posting angry misanthropic/misogynistic bullshit on Metafilter 24/7. My emotional maturation, halted cold at 16, began stumbling forward for the first time in a decade. As an added bonus I got to keep my brain (many bipolar people quit treatment because of severe cognitive impairment that accompanies many of the medications), so to say that I lucked out is putting it mildly: the suicide rate for bipolar people of any diagnosis is 5x higher than average. For my particular diagnosis there are no statistics that I can find but it is likely absurdly high.
At any rate, hopefully this clears up confusion for some people - emotional disorders are not like anything on the schiz spectrum, because there's almost never confusion as to what is actually real or factual... just a lot of delusional-in-the-colloquial-sense expectations of how situations are going to pan out or people are going to react. The best way to handle such a person is gently and with very, very thick emotional gloves.
*This specific diagnosis of bipolar is, based on my current understanding, the most extreme and difficult to treat that exists.
posted by Ryvar at 7:19 PM on December 16, 2014 [33 favorites]
This might call for a separate thread or AskMe or something, but I thought people with bipolar disorder often had what I would call "delusional" beliefs (scare quotes to indicate a layperson's usage) during the manic phase, such as wildly overestimating how much money they have in the bank or whether Spielberg has already committed to their screenplay or whatever. Can you elucidate, Deoridhe?
Ryvar is more of an expert than I on the extremes; my area of experience is schizophrenia with passing familiarity with bipolar disorder; that is, I'm focused specifically on "what is a delusion" more than most.
The DSM V defines delusion as: "Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility."
Keep in mind that claiming someone's beliefs are "delusional" is usually a dismissal of them, and so the bar for doing so should be a high one. As a clinician, I worry a lot more about false positives than false negatives; better I have to rethink my conclusions than they feel dismissed or diminished.
In terms of your examples, lots of people overestimate their bank accounts without being manic, much less psychotic, so that's not the best example; it's also reflective of the symptom of impulsivity, which is present even in mania without psychotic features. Your Spielberg example isn't the best either because it is a thing that can happen, and thus before claiming it was a delusion you'd have to examine it more closely; people with schizophrenia can be writers, and over-confidence or wishful thinking don't rise to the level of a delusion, even if the belief turns out to be false.
Pulling off of the DSM IV-TR (my V is at the office) bipolar with psychotic features has a further breakdown into mood congruent and mood-incongruent features. The former are delusions of personal inadequacy, guilt, disease, death, nihilism, or deserved punishment. The latter include persecutory delusions (squirrels are out to get me), thought insertion (squirrels are putting thoughts in my mind), thought broadcasting (the squirrels can hear me think), and delusions of control (squirrels make me do things). In both cases, the delusions have to also fit the above definition of delusion - no "my parents always told me I was poison", "God knows I'm a foul sinner", or "I fail as a human being" need apply. When you reach the point of "I can't touch you because the poison that is me will kill you" then you're in the area of delusions.
If you're interested in an inside look of what it's like to have psychosis The Center Cannot Hold by Elyn R. Saks is about her experiences with having Schizophrenia. I also recommend the Mental Illness Happy Hour for people discussing their experiences with a variety of mental illnesses.
posted by Deoridhe at 7:35 PM on December 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
Ryvar is more of an expert than I on the extremes; my area of experience is schizophrenia with passing familiarity with bipolar disorder; that is, I'm focused specifically on "what is a delusion" more than most.
The DSM V defines delusion as: "Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility."
Keep in mind that claiming someone's beliefs are "delusional" is usually a dismissal of them, and so the bar for doing so should be a high one. As a clinician, I worry a lot more about false positives than false negatives; better I have to rethink my conclusions than they feel dismissed or diminished.
In terms of your examples, lots of people overestimate their bank accounts without being manic, much less psychotic, so that's not the best example; it's also reflective of the symptom of impulsivity, which is present even in mania without psychotic features. Your Spielberg example isn't the best either because it is a thing that can happen, and thus before claiming it was a delusion you'd have to examine it more closely; people with schizophrenia can be writers, and over-confidence or wishful thinking don't rise to the level of a delusion, even if the belief turns out to be false.
Pulling off of the DSM IV-TR (my V is at the office) bipolar with psychotic features has a further breakdown into mood congruent and mood-incongruent features. The former are delusions of personal inadequacy, guilt, disease, death, nihilism, or deserved punishment. The latter include persecutory delusions (squirrels are out to get me), thought insertion (squirrels are putting thoughts in my mind), thought broadcasting (the squirrels can hear me think), and delusions of control (squirrels make me do things). In both cases, the delusions have to also fit the above definition of delusion - no "my parents always told me I was poison", "God knows I'm a foul sinner", or "I fail as a human being" need apply. When you reach the point of "I can't touch you because the poison that is me will kill you" then you're in the area of delusions.
If you're interested in an inside look of what it's like to have psychosis The Center Cannot Hold by Elyn R. Saks is about her experiences with having Schizophrenia. I also recommend the Mental Illness Happy Hour for people discussing their experiences with a variety of mental illnesses.
posted by Deoridhe at 7:35 PM on December 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
Thanks for that story, Ryvar...one couldn't ask for a clearer example of delusional-in-the-colloquial-sense vs. what happens when you have bipolar and a doctor hands you an antidepressant.
Also thanks Deoridhe for your detailed and (I suspect) expert reply.
I'm increasingly worried about derailing this thread, though, so let's all get back to #witness40.
posted by uosuaq at 7:43 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Also thanks Deoridhe for your detailed and (I suspect) expert reply.
I'm increasingly worried about derailing this thread, though, so let's all get back to #witness40.
posted by uosuaq at 7:43 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm baffled by this thread. An unreliable witness appears, a reluctant prosecutor seized on her as a weapon, and a killer goes free. Why are we discussing the polite way to discuss bipolar disorder?
posted by SPrintF at 9:43 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by SPrintF at 9:43 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
I think we have to consider the very real possibility that the Grand Jury could plainly tell she was unreliable and that it made no difference in their decision not to indict Wilson. Why? Because the DA plainly didn't want an indictment. If it wasn't her, it would have been someone else.
The impact of this revelation shouldn't be to revisit the indictment. It should be the DA losing his fucking job.
posted by dry white toast at 10:03 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
The impact of this revelation shouldn't be to revisit the indictment. It should be the DA losing his fucking job.
posted by dry white toast at 10:03 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
That's not a "real possibility" it's pretty clearly exactly what happened as I've been saying. If the DA wants an indictment the grand jury indicts. If the DA doesn't want an indictment the grand jury doesn't indict. That only ever comes up on police cases, though.
posted by Justinian at 11:00 PM on December 16, 2014
posted by Justinian at 11:00 PM on December 16, 2014
Avoid the Smoking Gun links if you do not want to see photos of Michael Brown lying dead in the street. That was a nasty shock for me just now. Maybe add a warning to the post?
posted by vickyverky at 11:05 PM on December 16, 2014
posted by vickyverky at 11:05 PM on December 16, 2014
I think we have to consider the very real possibility that the Grand Jury could plainly tell she was unreliable
Yes, as I've been saying also, it's not a very real possibility; it's a certainty. This whole story from TSG is silly because her testimony was absolutely shredded in the grand jury. It was implausible, impossible, and the prosecution made this very clear. They reminded her over and over not to lie; told her the jury could not find her credible when there was video refuting her claim that her car was there; told her specifically that her story was suspiciously similar to recent news reports; went over her medical history and suggested she'd had a psychotic break (!!) and was remembering having been there when she never had been; showed the map that made it clear she was lying; had her repeat her racist statements to the jury and talked about the pro-Wilson fundraising she had done as evidence (which they explicitly noted) that she had motive to lie.
Calling her a "key witness" is ridiculous. This stuff is all available in the testimony. Clearly she's troubled and shouldn't have been there and she ought to be brought up on perjury charges. But the idea that this woman "made" Wilson's case is nuts.
posted by torticat at 11:28 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
Yes, as I've been saying also, it's not a very real possibility; it's a certainty. This whole story from TSG is silly because her testimony was absolutely shredded in the grand jury. It was implausible, impossible, and the prosecution made this very clear. They reminded her over and over not to lie; told her the jury could not find her credible when there was video refuting her claim that her car was there; told her specifically that her story was suspiciously similar to recent news reports; went over her medical history and suggested she'd had a psychotic break (!!) and was remembering having been there when she never had been; showed the map that made it clear she was lying; had her repeat her racist statements to the jury and talked about the pro-Wilson fundraising she had done as evidence (which they explicitly noted) that she had motive to lie.
Calling her a "key witness" is ridiculous. This stuff is all available in the testimony. Clearly she's troubled and shouldn't have been there and she ought to be brought up on perjury charges. But the idea that this woman "made" Wilson's case is nuts.
posted by torticat at 11:28 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
Metafilter: Why are we discussing the polite way to discuss bipolar disorder?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:16 AM on December 17, 2014
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:16 AM on December 17, 2014
Hey, you got a link for, would love to read it.
Hey, that was a great request, because it got me to looking, and I realized I had conflated a couple of different stories. Brown's friend did not admit he had lied. He did backtrack on some details, and certain parts of his story were contradicted by a great deal of evidence and the testimony of a lot of other witnesses. So I have read, at least. Thanks for asking that question, so I could realize I had mixed-up some pretty important details. Sorry for spreading misinformation.
posted by Edgewise at 1:13 AM on December 17, 2014 [4 favorites]
Hey, that was a great request, because it got me to looking, and I realized I had conflated a couple of different stories. Brown's friend did not admit he had lied. He did backtrack on some details, and certain parts of his story were contradicted by a great deal of evidence and the testimony of a lot of other witnesses. So I have read, at least. Thanks for asking that question, so I could realize I had mixed-up some pretty important details. Sorry for spreading misinformation.
posted by Edgewise at 1:13 AM on December 17, 2014 [4 favorites]
> In fact, the probability is that liars are, on the whole, less likely to be mentally ill, since people in general are less likely to be mentally ill than not, an people are, you know, liars.
This reasoning is totally incorrect from start to end. You might as well argue that albinos are less likely to be liars, since people in general are less likely to be albinos.
Look at the order of the things in the statement you quoted compared to your analogy. You got it backwards.
liars are, on the whole, less likely to be mentally ill
You might as well argue that albinos are less likely to be liars
The correct analogy is that "Liars are less likely to be albinos [than not albinos], because albinism is rare in general". Which should both be obviously true, and also demonstrate how the original statement is sound.
posted by NMcCoy at 5:11 AM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
This reasoning is totally incorrect from start to end. You might as well argue that albinos are less likely to be liars, since people in general are less likely to be albinos.
Look at the order of the things in the statement you quoted compared to your analogy. You got it backwards.
liars are, on the whole, less likely to be mentally ill
You might as well argue that albinos are less likely to be liars
The correct analogy is that "Liars are less likely to be albinos [than not albinos], because albinism is rare in general". Which should both be obviously true, and also demonstrate how the original statement is sound.
posted by NMcCoy at 5:11 AM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
So if the prosecution did show her testimony to be false in the grand jury hearing, how on earth did the grand jury still decide not to indict? Was it just that they found Wilson's testimony more believable outside the scores of other testimony that, conflicting or not, more or less showed Brown was gunned down without reason? Yes, yes, I know the prosecutor didn't want an indictment, but it does seem awfully suspicious that the grand jury didn't think there was enough to pursue further. I always assumed it was because witness 40 so closely matched Wilson's which made it seem more credible. But if that isn't the case as Torticat points out, how did we get here?
In that vein, how is jury selection done in grand jury hearings? I know how it's done in trials. But there isn't really a defense yet, is there? Could the prosecutor choose the most racesty racists and cop apologists to ensure the outcome desired?
posted by [insert clever name here] at 5:20 AM on December 17, 2014
In that vein, how is jury selection done in grand jury hearings? I know how it's done in trials. But there isn't really a defense yet, is there? Could the prosecutor choose the most racesty racists and cop apologists to ensure the outcome desired?
posted by [insert clever name here] at 5:20 AM on December 17, 2014
So if the prosecution did show her testimony to be false in the grand jury hearing, how on earth did the grand jury still decide not to indict?
You should really read Dorian Johnson's testiomony, it starts on page 16 here. Never mind what it says, read the reaction of the grand jury members to him. There's a repeated and lengthy derail about why he and Brown were walking in the middle street and didn't immediately do what the officer said when he told them to get on the sidewalk.
Seriously, in a murder investigation, this was the main bone of contention for the grand jury. Much like the juror in the Trayvon Martin trial who wondered what he was doing out after 7pm, there's major cultural differences between the jurors and witnesses or victims. Differences that put all the blame on the victim, while standing staunchly behind whatever the police say.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:30 AM on December 17, 2014 [13 favorites]
You should really read Dorian Johnson's testiomony, it starts on page 16 here. Never mind what it says, read the reaction of the grand jury members to him. There's a repeated and lengthy derail about why he and Brown were walking in the middle street and didn't immediately do what the officer said when he told them to get on the sidewalk.
Seriously, in a murder investigation, this was the main bone of contention for the grand jury. Much like the juror in the Trayvon Martin trial who wondered what he was doing out after 7pm, there's major cultural differences between the jurors and witnesses or victims. Differences that put all the blame on the victim, while standing staunchly behind whatever the police say.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:30 AM on December 17, 2014 [13 favorites]
The impact of this revelation shouldn't be to revisit the indictment. It should be the DA losing his fucking job.
I'd like both, please.
posted by Gelatin at 5:31 AM on December 17, 2014 [3 favorites]
I'd like both, please.
posted by Gelatin at 5:31 AM on December 17, 2014 [3 favorites]
I think the basic issue is that people are generally deferential to cops and will give them the benefit of the doubt, there is strong evidence of an up-close altercation between Wilson and Brown, and the prosecution didn't push to indict.
posted by leopard at 5:31 AM on December 17, 2014
posted by leopard at 5:31 AM on December 17, 2014
The DSM definition of delusion is infamous for being seriously deficient. Delusions needn't be false, for example. (You can't cure someone of their persecutory delusions by actually following them.) Some people (me included) don't think delusions are beliefs. They might not involve inference. Many delusions aren't about "external reality". "Firmly sustained" is ambiguous and has a number of readings. And the claim that delusions can't be accepted by other members of a subculture is a pretty clear ad hoc political addition in order to prevent debates about whether certain religious or political convictions are delusional.
Other definitions in other diagnostic manuals highlight different features. Some emphasize the unique way in which delusions are formed: for example, they say that delusions are products of "disturbed judgment." The DSM, attempting to be theoretically neutral, eschews etiological definitions.
But all the other contenders are pretty bad too. The problem is that we don't have a very good understanding of delusions at all, so any definition is bound to be inadequate. The DSM definition, considering only rough surface features, works well enough for pragmatic, diagnostic purposes. To be fair, the condition about the patient's subculture makes some sense in a practical diagnostic manual (though not a research manual). If someone grows up in a culture where a certain religious view is the norm, there's a non-pathological explanation for how they could come to adopt that view. That's evidence that there is nothing wrong with them. But this shouldn't be taken to mean that, by definition, someone in a subculture can't have a delusion that everyone else agrees with. (You can't cure someone of a delusion just by putting them in a new subculture.)
So I don't know if it's fair to say that someone in a manic episode is not deluded about the size of their bank account just because lots of other people overestimate their bank accounts. Plenty of mood disorders are accompanied with delusions. I am rather sure that when we come to know more about delusion formation and how to characterize delusions, it will turn out to be correct to say that the overestimations of ability and power and wealth in manic episodes are delusions.
I agree with Deoridhe that the witness in this case was probably not deluded about the contents of her testimony, and there are an awful lot of misconceptions about mental illness in all of these news reports. But I don't know about the rhetorical strategy of asking commenters to adhere to the DSM definition of delusions because "right now it's what we use." (The "we" here only really applies to Americans, by the way.) It strikes me as a little... I don't know... fetishistic of the DSM. It's notably terrible on this subject.
posted by painquale at 6:10 AM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
Other definitions in other diagnostic manuals highlight different features. Some emphasize the unique way in which delusions are formed: for example, they say that delusions are products of "disturbed judgment." The DSM, attempting to be theoretically neutral, eschews etiological definitions.
But all the other contenders are pretty bad too. The problem is that we don't have a very good understanding of delusions at all, so any definition is bound to be inadequate. The DSM definition, considering only rough surface features, works well enough for pragmatic, diagnostic purposes. To be fair, the condition about the patient's subculture makes some sense in a practical diagnostic manual (though not a research manual). If someone grows up in a culture where a certain religious view is the norm, there's a non-pathological explanation for how they could come to adopt that view. That's evidence that there is nothing wrong with them. But this shouldn't be taken to mean that, by definition, someone in a subculture can't have a delusion that everyone else agrees with. (You can't cure someone of a delusion just by putting them in a new subculture.)
So I don't know if it's fair to say that someone in a manic episode is not deluded about the size of their bank account just because lots of other people overestimate their bank accounts. Plenty of mood disorders are accompanied with delusions. I am rather sure that when we come to know more about delusion formation and how to characterize delusions, it will turn out to be correct to say that the overestimations of ability and power and wealth in manic episodes are delusions.
I agree with Deoridhe that the witness in this case was probably not deluded about the contents of her testimony, and there are an awful lot of misconceptions about mental illness in all of these news reports. But I don't know about the rhetorical strategy of asking commenters to adhere to the DSM definition of delusions because "right now it's what we use." (The "we" here only really applies to Americans, by the way.) It strikes me as a little... I don't know... fetishistic of the DSM. It's notably terrible on this subject.
posted by painquale at 6:10 AM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
The only relevant point is: how much of the decision not to indict was based on this woman's testimony? Unfortunately, I don't think that's knowable. I also dont think it's zero either; you throw enough demonstrably false information at a jury and some of it will stick.
posted by trif at 6:27 AM on December 17, 2014
posted by trif at 6:27 AM on December 17, 2014
The big reveal of TSG's report is that the prosecutor either did not care about Witness 40's credibility, or did not check in any meaningful way. If a reporter can dig it up, think about how much more a DA's investigator could do, with the power of a badge behind their information gathering efforts.
The prosecutor deliberately put a witness who (according to the police) offered false witness in another high-profile St. Louis case in front of the Brown grand jury. The prosecutor thought Witness 40 important enough to verbally highlight that testimony in his remarks to the world.
In the end, Witness 40 indicts the prosecutor.
posted by Andrew Galarneau at 6:42 AM on December 17, 2014 [3 favorites]
The prosecutor deliberately put a witness who (according to the police) offered false witness in another high-profile St. Louis case in front of the Brown grand jury. The prosecutor thought Witness 40 important enough to verbally highlight that testimony in his remarks to the world.
In the end, Witness 40 indicts the prosecutor.
posted by Andrew Galarneau at 6:42 AM on December 17, 2014 [3 favorites]
This goes beyond the testimony, though. Once the "no bill" decision happened and the grand jury evidence was made public, conservative media seized on this woman's testimony as "disproving" the stories of Dorian Johnson and other witnesses, and "proving" Officer Wilson was telling the truth. Her lies poisoned discussion of the case among the public at large.
posted by sallybrown at 6:43 AM on December 17, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 6:43 AM on December 17, 2014 [9 favorites]
Even though the prosecution discredited witness 40's testimony, he also made sure she testified. She got to tell her story and more importantly the grand jury got to hear it. Just because it got shot full of holes, the jurors couldn't un-hear what they'd heard. I'm sure that was the DA's intention. Her testimony poisoned the well and he got to both use her testimony and discredit it as necessary.
posted by wabbittwax at 7:02 AM on December 17, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by wabbittwax at 7:02 AM on December 17, 2014 [5 favorites]
(I haven't even looked at the transcript but I'd be willing to bet that her testimony and the discrediting cross-examination happened on separate days)
posted by wabbittwax at 7:05 AM on December 17, 2014
posted by wabbittwax at 7:05 AM on December 17, 2014
The testimony was over two days (October 23 and November 3). Here is the testimony from the first day, starting on page 184. Some interaction from the first day:
"So you have never made any racist remarks?"
"No, I've never posted on Facebook any racial remark."
"But you have made racist remarks?"
"Yes, ma'am, I don't like to be considered racist. I try very hard. And I know for a fact that my children are not racist, but does it sound with my language and my behavior that I am racist? Yes, ma'am, but it's not something that I approve of, if that makes sense."
"Honestly, no, but that's OK. You were going to see an African-American friend, is that correct..."
Then there's some back-and-forth about an inconsistency regarding when the witness called her friend and about why the witness turned into the apartment complex. Some quotes that seem to indicate a lack of respect towards the witness:
"In the FBI statement you said you saw an apartment complex, you turned into the apartment complex because you thought maybe this was where you miraculously found out where your friend lived; is that right?"
"You were just going to try to remember what he was going to tell you knowing that you have a problem with directions and short term memory?"
"You admit you get confused?"
"You said you venture out all the time not knowing where you're going?"
"I'm just confused and I find it hard to believe you didn't take your first opportunity to turn around."
Then there's a recess and the witness comes back 10 days later to further cross-examination.
posted by leopard at 7:33 AM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
"So you have never made any racist remarks?"
"No, I've never posted on Facebook any racial remark."
"But you have made racist remarks?"
"Yes, ma'am, I don't like to be considered racist. I try very hard. And I know for a fact that my children are not racist, but does it sound with my language and my behavior that I am racist? Yes, ma'am, but it's not something that I approve of, if that makes sense."
"Honestly, no, but that's OK. You were going to see an African-American friend, is that correct..."
Then there's some back-and-forth about an inconsistency regarding when the witness called her friend and about why the witness turned into the apartment complex. Some quotes that seem to indicate a lack of respect towards the witness:
"In the FBI statement you said you saw an apartment complex, you turned into the apartment complex because you thought maybe this was where you miraculously found out where your friend lived; is that right?"
"You were just going to try to remember what he was going to tell you knowing that you have a problem with directions and short term memory?"
"You admit you get confused?"
"You said you venture out all the time not knowing where you're going?"
"I'm just confused and I find it hard to believe you didn't take your first opportunity to turn around."
Then there's a recess and the witness comes back 10 days later to further cross-examination.
posted by leopard at 7:33 AM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think this story is important, not because of whether or not #witness40 persuaded the Grand Jury not to indict, but because it was her testimony alone that the right wing media latched on to make their point that Mike Brown had it coming.
(And yeah, I agree that turning this into a debate on how to politely talk about mental illness is a derail.)
posted by monospace at 8:28 AM on December 17, 2014
(And yeah, I agree that turning this into a debate on how to politely talk about mental illness is a derail.)
posted by monospace at 8:28 AM on December 17, 2014
What now? Is there anything like a mistrial or appeal process for a Grand Jury?
posted by Room 641-A at 8:43 AM on December 17, 2014
posted by Room 641-A at 8:43 AM on December 17, 2014
Sure, if Missouri had a governor that wasn't a gutless turd, they could order a special prosecutor to retry the case. There's no double jeopardy to contend with. Somebody just has to come along with the winning combination of authority and a spine.
posted by wabbittwax at 8:49 AM on December 17, 2014
posted by wabbittwax at 8:49 AM on December 17, 2014
I'm not a legal expert, but I don't think Sean Hannity citing a discredited witness is grounds for a mistrial or an appeal.
posted by leopard at 8:52 AM on December 17, 2014
posted by leopard at 8:52 AM on December 17, 2014
it was her testimony alone that the right wing media latched on to make their point that Mike Brown had it coming.
So if not for her testimony, the right wing media would have been forced to admit that Wilson should have been indicted?
posted by leopard at 8:54 AM on December 17, 2014
So if not for her testimony, the right wing media would have been forced to admit that Wilson should have been indicted?
posted by leopard at 8:54 AM on December 17, 2014
It's my understanding that since there was no indictment and therefore no trial, there's no need for anything so formal as an appeal or a mistrial.
posted by wabbittwax at 8:56 AM on December 17, 2014
posted by wabbittwax at 8:56 AM on December 17, 2014
Well, no, of course the right wing media would have found another stick.
But as it stands, this is what they went with, and it's good to be able to point out that the whole narrative of Michael Brown charging like a linebacker is, shall we say, uncorroborated at best.
posted by monospace at 9:00 AM on December 17, 2014
But as it stands, this is what they went with, and it's good to be able to point out that the whole narrative of Michael Brown charging like a linebacker is, shall we say, uncorroborated at best.
posted by monospace at 9:00 AM on December 17, 2014
So if the prosecution did show her testimony to be false in the grand jury hearing, how on earth did the grand jury still decide not to indict?
Because there was testimony from other witnesses, mostly black, backing up the account of a close altercation at the car and saying that Michael Brown was moving back toward Wilson when he was shot. The nauseatingly racist white woman parroting the news stories wasn't needed.
There were huge problems with how this grand jury was set up from the start and there are huger problems with the latitude allowed (by law) to cops to escalate these situations to the point of executing an 18-year-old kid. Those are the problems we should focus on, not this one discredited witness.
(I haven't even looked at the transcript but I'd be willing to bet that her testimony and the discrediting cross-examination happened on separate days)
Just read it. Almost everything I described up above was contained in her interview with the FBI, which was the very first thing played for the grand jury. She was questioned following that by the GJ and then again on a later date. The psychotic break question came during the second hearing, I think.
If a reporter can dig it up, think about how much more a DA's investigator could do,
THEY DID, is what I'm trying to say. Pretty much everything in the TSG article was gone over in the grand jury proceedings. The only thing the article adds is her actual identity.
posted by torticat at 9:03 AM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
Because there was testimony from other witnesses, mostly black, backing up the account of a close altercation at the car and saying that Michael Brown was moving back toward Wilson when he was shot. The nauseatingly racist white woman parroting the news stories wasn't needed.
There were huge problems with how this grand jury was set up from the start and there are huger problems with the latitude allowed (by law) to cops to escalate these situations to the point of executing an 18-year-old kid. Those are the problems we should focus on, not this one discredited witness.
(I haven't even looked at the transcript but I'd be willing to bet that her testimony and the discrediting cross-examination happened on separate days)
Just read it. Almost everything I described up above was contained in her interview with the FBI, which was the very first thing played for the grand jury. She was questioned following that by the GJ and then again on a later date. The psychotic break question came during the second hearing, I think.
If a reporter can dig it up, think about how much more a DA's investigator could do,
THEY DID, is what I'm trying to say. Pretty much everything in the TSG article was gone over in the grand jury proceedings. The only thing the article adds is her actual identity.
posted by torticat at 9:03 AM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
So if not for her testimony, the right wing media would have been forced to admit that Wilson should have been indicted?
Yes, if McElroy is the star the right wing media hitched their wagon to, they should be feeling like the idiots they are, about now. They should have read the transcripts.
posted by torticat at 9:06 AM on December 17, 2014
Yes, if McElroy is the star the right wing media hitched their wagon to, they should be feeling like the idiots they are, about now. They should have read the transcripts.
posted by torticat at 9:06 AM on December 17, 2014
But as it stands, this is what they went with, and it's good to be able to point out that the whole narrative of Michael Brown charging like a linebacker is, shall we say, uncorroborated at best.
This is simply not true.
Look at this Washington Post summary of testimony regarding "Did Michael Brown charge?"
As far as I can tell it doesn't even reference Witness 40's testimony.
posted by leopard at 9:09 AM on December 17, 2014
This is simply not true.
Look at this Washington Post summary of testimony regarding "Did Michael Brown charge?"
As far as I can tell it doesn't even reference Witness 40's testimony.
posted by leopard at 9:09 AM on December 17, 2014
Further from the WaPo:
posted by leopard at 9:15 AM on December 17, 2014
According to transcripts of the grand jury investigation into the deadly encounter in Ferguson, three of the witnesses to the shooting described Brown’s movements as a “charge.” Another couple said Brown may have been charging but were not sure. Most of the rest saw forward motion but described it as “steps” or “walking” or “stumbling,” with about a half dozen of these witnesses interpreting Brown’s actions as an attempt to surrender.Witness 40 was discredited in front of the grand jury. Her false testimony was also not critical to anyone's case.
posted by leopard at 9:15 AM on December 17, 2014
That WP link looks borked to me, but that's beside the point. The "he charged like a linebacker" narrative is pretty well established in right wing circles (from Hannity to my own Facebook feed) whether they explicit mention Witness 40 or not.
posted by monospace at 9:16 AM on December 17, 2014
posted by monospace at 9:16 AM on December 17, 2014
Once again, Witness 40 was not the only witness testifying that Brown charged. Multiple witnesses testified to this effect.
And Witness 40 was clearly discredited during her testimony.
So if Witness 40 is irrelevant then what is the point of this thread?
posted by leopard at 9:23 AM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
And Witness 40 was clearly discredited during her testimony.
So if Witness 40 is irrelevant then what is the point of this thread?
posted by leopard at 9:23 AM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
Witness 40 has been quoted almost verbatim by the right wing. If Witness 40 is irrelevant, it casts doubt on the others who made a similar claim. Surely that's not so hard to understand?
posted by monospace at 9:26 AM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by monospace at 9:26 AM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
"Multiple" being Wilson, Witness 40 and one other.
posted by Flashman at 9:26 AM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Flashman at 9:26 AM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
In the Washington Post summary I linked above, they quote three different witnesses who are neither Wilson nor Witness 40 saying things like:
"When he charged once more"
"started charging towards the officer"
"I thought he was trying to charge him"
posted by leopard at 9:30 AM on December 17, 2014
"When he charged once more"
"started charging towards the officer"
"I thought he was trying to charge him"
posted by leopard at 9:30 AM on December 17, 2014
You don't seem to understand. Witness 40 was the right wing media STAR witness.
posted by monospace at 9:37 AM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by monospace at 9:37 AM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
So what's the takeaway? I'm supposed to lower my opinion of Sean Hannity? I didn't think that was possible, but OK, done. Now what?
posted by leopard at 9:41 AM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by leopard at 9:41 AM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
Not content to be beneath contempt, Sean Hannity will always dig himself a little deeper each time he opens his fool mouth.
posted by wabbittwax at 9:49 AM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by wabbittwax at 9:49 AM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
So what's the takeaway? I'm supposed to lower my opinion of Sean Hannity? I didn't think that was possible, but OK, done. Now what?
You stop arguing about someone being wrong on the internet.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:51 AM on December 17, 2014
You stop arguing about someone being wrong on the internet.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:51 AM on December 17, 2014
If Witness 40 is irrelevant, it casts doubt on the others who made a similar claim. Surely that's not so hard to understand?
I think it is, actually. When these kind of high-profile cases come up, there's always sick individuals who just want to be a part of it - who take what's released in the press and come forward. If someone did that with Brown's story, would you now be believing Wilson? Just because one person is lying or mistaken doesn't mean that everyone who agreed with them, who had no interaction with them, was as well.
posted by corb at 12:14 PM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
I think it is, actually. When these kind of high-profile cases come up, there's always sick individuals who just want to be a part of it - who take what's released in the press and come forward. If someone did that with Brown's story, would you now be believing Wilson? Just because one person is lying or mistaken doesn't mean that everyone who agreed with them, who had no interaction with them, was as well.
posted by corb at 12:14 PM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
I still don't understand why Witness 40 was permitted to present testimony. I get that the prosecutor decided to present all evidence. But surely that should not include demonstrably false evidence? If I came forward claiming that I saw an alien swoop down and shoot Michael Brown and that Darren Wilson was the victim of a vast alien conspiracy, I doubt the prosecutor would be like, "ok, that's clearly a lie but go ahead and testify because I want to present all the evidence." The minute the FBI figured out this woman was not actually there, she should have been no longer a part of this story. To me, the takeaway from Witness 40 is that it's yet another sign the process was flawed.
posted by sallybrown at 2:15 PM on December 17, 2014 [14 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 2:15 PM on December 17, 2014 [14 favorites]
If Witness 40 is irrelevant, it casts doubt on the others who made a similar claim. Surely that's not so hard to understand?
Just because one person is lying or mistaken doesn't mean that everyone who agreed with them, who had no interaction with them, was as well.
And I'll tell you what - if you're ON that jury and you identify one witness as being worthless or a liar or simply non-credible, you sure better not decide that all the witnesses are therefore the same. One reason there are many people on a jury is so that kind of thinking gets deep-sixed before it even gets expressed. The testimony of each witness must be examined for its own worth first. If every witness agrees on a point, that's one thing, but it's also unusual; look at the way some people saw Brown's movement as "charging" while others saw it as "stumbling."
And just as an aside, I haven't been on a grand jury but I have served as a jury member several times, including once on a murder trial, and the thing that no one on the outside "gets" is that the jury members don't know as much as the people reading the newspapers - they only get what information the court decides they get, and secondly, the jury is under explicit instructions from the judge as to what information they are allowed to use and what they're to disregard - you'd be surprised how much testimony the jury is told to disregard. The judge also describes the exact requirements to meet each specific charge that the defendant can be convicted of so the jury knows what material is necessary to bring a conviction on, say, aggravated assault vs assault vs assault with a deadly weapon vs attempted murder, etc (those "charges" just used as an example for comparison).
I think the DA in this case should be behind bars along with Wilson and the Judge. From the outside, not the inside where the jury was, it's as obvious a racist/KKK corruption of power as I've seen since the 60s. We made big improvements to civil rights in this country back then - we determined that all people, no matter what their skin color, have the same rights and we passed some laws to hold to those standards. Those laws need to be dug out of the mothballs and used to put these creeps behind bars - for a long stay, not a week or two - and without pay, dammit.
posted by aryma at 9:06 PM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
Just because one person is lying or mistaken doesn't mean that everyone who agreed with them, who had no interaction with them, was as well.
And I'll tell you what - if you're ON that jury and you identify one witness as being worthless or a liar or simply non-credible, you sure better not decide that all the witnesses are therefore the same. One reason there are many people on a jury is so that kind of thinking gets deep-sixed before it even gets expressed. The testimony of each witness must be examined for its own worth first. If every witness agrees on a point, that's one thing, but it's also unusual; look at the way some people saw Brown's movement as "charging" while others saw it as "stumbling."
And just as an aside, I haven't been on a grand jury but I have served as a jury member several times, including once on a murder trial, and the thing that no one on the outside "gets" is that the jury members don't know as much as the people reading the newspapers - they only get what information the court decides they get, and secondly, the jury is under explicit instructions from the judge as to what information they are allowed to use and what they're to disregard - you'd be surprised how much testimony the jury is told to disregard. The judge also describes the exact requirements to meet each specific charge that the defendant can be convicted of so the jury knows what material is necessary to bring a conviction on, say, aggravated assault vs assault vs assault with a deadly weapon vs attempted murder, etc (those "charges" just used as an example for comparison).
I think the DA in this case should be behind bars along with Wilson and the Judge. From the outside, not the inside where the jury was, it's as obvious a racist/KKK corruption of power as I've seen since the 60s. We made big improvements to civil rights in this country back then - we determined that all people, no matter what their skin color, have the same rights and we passed some laws to hold to those standards. Those laws need to be dug out of the mothballs and used to put these creeps behind bars - for a long stay, not a week or two - and without pay, dammit.
posted by aryma at 9:06 PM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
I think the DA in this case should be behind bars along with Wilson and the Judge.
There was no judge for the grand jury. That's why it's almost tautological that if a DA wants an indictment, he gets an indictment and if he doesn't, he doesn't. Because he (or she) is completely in charge.
posted by Justinian at 9:46 PM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
There was no judge for the grand jury. That's why it's almost tautological that if a DA wants an indictment, he gets an indictment and if he doesn't, he doesn't. Because he (or she) is completely in charge.
posted by Justinian at 9:46 PM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
I still don't understand why Witness 40 was permitted to present testimony. I get that the prosecutor decided to present all evidence. But surely that should not include demonstrably false evidence?
Well, that was in part why McCulloch's approach was so controversial--because he threw everything at the GJ. What he said back in the summer was, “We will be presenting absolutely everything to this grand jury--every statement that any witness made, every witness, every photograph, every piece of physical evidence...Absolutely nothing will be left out.”
I suppose that, after that statement, they figured there would have been a rightwing firestorm of another kind if they'd held back Witness 40's testimony. McCulloch had already disavowed responsibility for any sorting out of truth from lies. I don't think, though, that they could have possibly thought her testimony would help Wilson's case--if anything she was like a roadside bomb, liable to go off in GJ testimony and seriously undermine it, by association if nothing else. They knew how unstable she was from the FBI interview.
Her lies poisoned discussion of the case among the public at large.
You know sallybrown, I hadn't really read commentary after the GJ document dump (no facebook, definitely no rightwing media), just news reports and a lot of the testimony itself. Having googled a bit this morning about Witness 40, I can totally see your point here, and I want to retract my dismissiveness upthread about her significance. Like I said it's ludicrous to call her a "key witness"--and I still think that's true with regard to the grand jury itself--but it's fair to call her a key witness as far as public opinion is concerned.
That is truly disgusting, and McCulloch bears responsibility for it. I think by way of his abdication of his duty rather than his actively supporting or using Witness 40, but it's on him either way.
So what's the takeaway? I'm supposed to lower my opinion of Sean Hannity? I didn't think that was possible, but OK, done.
This made me laugh, but I have to say after my reading/watching this morning, it IS possible. Crazy, I know.
posted by torticat at 6:14 AM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
Well, that was in part why McCulloch's approach was so controversial--because he threw everything at the GJ. What he said back in the summer was, “We will be presenting absolutely everything to this grand jury--every statement that any witness made, every witness, every photograph, every piece of physical evidence...Absolutely nothing will be left out.”
I suppose that, after that statement, they figured there would have been a rightwing firestorm of another kind if they'd held back Witness 40's testimony. McCulloch had already disavowed responsibility for any sorting out of truth from lies. I don't think, though, that they could have possibly thought her testimony would help Wilson's case--if anything she was like a roadside bomb, liable to go off in GJ testimony and seriously undermine it, by association if nothing else. They knew how unstable she was from the FBI interview.
Her lies poisoned discussion of the case among the public at large.
You know sallybrown, I hadn't really read commentary after the GJ document dump (no facebook, definitely no rightwing media), just news reports and a lot of the testimony itself. Having googled a bit this morning about Witness 40, I can totally see your point here, and I want to retract my dismissiveness upthread about her significance. Like I said it's ludicrous to call her a "key witness"--and I still think that's true with regard to the grand jury itself--but it's fair to call her a key witness as far as public opinion is concerned.
That is truly disgusting, and McCulloch bears responsibility for it. I think by way of his abdication of his duty rather than his actively supporting or using Witness 40, but it's on him either way.
So what's the takeaway? I'm supposed to lower my opinion of Sean Hannity? I didn't think that was possible, but OK, done.
This made me laugh, but I have to say after my reading/watching this morning, it IS possible. Crazy, I know.
posted by torticat at 6:14 AM on December 18, 2014 [1 favorite]
I still don't understand why Witness 40 was permitted to present testimony
BTW, also, this is an interesting little clip that offers a couple theories. McCulloch is either a villain or a coward or both, however you paint it.
posted by torticat at 6:45 AM on December 18, 2014
BTW, also, this is an interesting little clip that offers a couple theories. McCulloch is either a villain or a coward or both, however you paint it.
posted by torticat at 6:45 AM on December 18, 2014
I still don't understand why Witness 40 was permitted to present testimony. I get that the prosecutor decided to present all evidence.
Ah, there's the thing. Presenting 'all' the evidence is just not a thing that's done with grand juries. The prosecutor is in complete control of the process and presents only the evidence that supports their assertion that the accused should be charged. The only reason for putting up a witness you know is lying is to torpedo your own presentation. As someone said upthread, Witness 40 convicts the DA.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:30 AM on December 18, 2014 [4 favorites]
Ah, there's the thing. Presenting 'all' the evidence is just not a thing that's done with grand juries. The prosecutor is in complete control of the process and presents only the evidence that supports their assertion that the accused should be charged. The only reason for putting up a witness you know is lying is to torpedo your own presentation. As someone said upthread, Witness 40 convicts the DA.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:30 AM on December 18, 2014 [4 favorites]
That led me to an interesting though. Could Brown's family go after the DA in a civil suit for his mishandling of the grand jury? I mean I know anyone can sue anyone for anything, but I feel like a case could be made the his actions were willfully negligent. Of course, what I feel and what is actually law are two very different things.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 3:50 PM on December 18, 2014
posted by [insert clever name here] at 3:50 PM on December 18, 2014
There are issues with sovereign immunity when trying to sue a representative of the State for actions undertaken in pursuit of their duties.
posted by Justinian at 8:45 PM on December 18, 2014
posted by Justinian at 8:45 PM on December 18, 2014
Prosecutor Says He Knew Some Witnesses Were Lying To The Ferguson Grand Jury
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:17 PM on December 19, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:17 PM on December 19, 2014 [3 favorites]
Is there not, at the very least, some official lawyers' behavioral code that that blatantly violates?
posted by Flunkie at 4:43 PM on December 19, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Flunkie at 4:43 PM on December 19, 2014 [2 favorites]
From the article,
As BuzzFeed notes, the rules governing attorneys in Missouri expressly prohibits a lawyer from "[offering] evidence that the lawyer knows to be false." Rule 4-3.3 of the state's rules of professional conduct reads in part:
posted by codacorolla at 4:56 PM on December 19, 2014 [1 favorite]
As BuzzFeed notes, the rules governing attorneys in Missouri expressly prohibits a lawyer from "[offering] evidence that the lawyer knows to be false." Rule 4-3.3 of the state's rules of professional conduct reads in part:
A lawyer shall not knowingly...offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer's client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.He strikes me as a man who is both lazy and incompetent, and who's been so comfortable for so long that he has no trouble flouting the rules on public media with no expectation of punishment. In addition to being a bigot and an asshole. In fact, throughout this whole thing, that's what the white powers-that-be have indicated to me. Lazy and unreflexive corruption that's used to having absolute privilege.
posted by codacorolla at 4:56 PM on December 19, 2014 [1 favorite]
Flunkie: "Is there not, at the very least, some official lawyers' behavioral code that that blatantly violates?"
It is probably a federal felony. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1622
I spent a couple hours digging around in case law and statute and hornbooks (not comprehensive by any means and I have no expertise in this area), and the Daily Kos author's readings of the statute regarding suborning perjury, and whether the five elements are met, are quite similar to mine. I think only one element is arguable, and this is definitely the direction I'd start off if I were trying to argue it:
It is probably a federal felony. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1622
I spent a couple hours digging around in case law and statute and hornbooks (not comprehensive by any means and I have no expertise in this area), and the Daily Kos author's readings of the statute regarding suborning perjury, and whether the five elements are met, are quite similar to mine. I think only one element is arguable, and this is definitely the direction I'd start off if I were trying to argue it:
"The final element [first listed in the statute] required is proof that the defendant made an agreement to testify falsely. A very strong case can be made that when the prosecution, fully and completely aware that McElroy did not witness the crime, asked her to bring in and present her journal from the day of the shooting, which was presented as evidence, that it was done so with the full knowledge that whatever was in it was completelyd false. In fact, the record shows that the prosecution knew that what was in the journal was false before they allowed it to be presented as evidence, but that they, in agreement with the witness, not only allowed her to perjure herself, but also fully encouraged the entire charade."posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:54 PM on December 19, 2014
It is probably a federal felony.
But then McCulloch was kind of equal-opportunity felonious, though, because there was another witness who was very anti-Wilson and was permitted to give a whole elaborate story that he afterwards also almost completely retracted--well, he admitted anyway that he hadn't personally witnessed it. And they knew going in that that testimony was false, also.
I'm not saying it wasn't still some kind of malfeasance on McCulloch's part; it all seems like just an unbelievable waste of the grand jury's time. And again, an abdication of his duty to show some discretion regarding what the prosecution placed in front of the GJ.
posted by torticat at 9:02 PM on December 19, 2014 [1 favorite]
But then McCulloch was kind of equal-opportunity felonious, though, because there was another witness who was very anti-Wilson and was permitted to give a whole elaborate story that he afterwards also almost completely retracted--well, he admitted anyway that he hadn't personally witnessed it. And they knew going in that that testimony was false, also.
I'm not saying it wasn't still some kind of malfeasance on McCulloch's part; it all seems like just an unbelievable waste of the grand jury's time. And again, an abdication of his duty to show some discretion regarding what the prosecution placed in front of the GJ.
posted by torticat at 9:02 PM on December 19, 2014 [1 favorite]
But then he'd have to bear responsibility for the outcome rather than attempting to wash his hands of the whole affair. And that would take moral courage, something nowhere in evidence.
posted by Justinian at 9:35 PM on December 19, 2014
posted by Justinian at 9:35 PM on December 19, 2014
That's an additional breach, adding up to two breaches total, not negative one breach adding up to zero breaches.
posted by Flunkie at 5:41 AM on December 20, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by Flunkie at 5:41 AM on December 20, 2014 [5 favorites]
He literally suborned perjury and is too smug or too dumb to not brag about it in public. Christ.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:02 PM on December 20, 2014
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:02 PM on December 20, 2014
« Older Everyone is poised to attack anyone. But it's all... | Null Pointers for All Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by clockzero at 12:20 PM on December 16, 2014