# Now that we know the truth about witness #40



## QuickSilver (Dec 19, 2014)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...tness-40-a-white-supremacist?detail=facebook#




> What's clear now, and what was actually clear to the FBI and the prosecutors before she ever testified, is that Sandy McElroy wasn't anywhere near Canfield Drive the day Mike Brown was killed and made her entire story up. Not only that, but Sandy McElroy was on record with the St. Louis police as having lied and concocted fanciful stories in other murder cases in which she falsely claimed to be a witness.



Knowing all that we know about her testimony, here are four things that should happen immediately.




> 1. *Sandy McElroy should be immediately charged with perjury.* She was clearly told by the FBI and the prosecutors that lying about being there was a crime and was given chance after chance to back down. Instead she doubled down and added very specific and destructive details about what she saw Mike Brown do that day.





> Furthermore, Sandy McElroy is not at all like an eyewitness who was actually there and sincerely believed she saw the events unfold in a way that may be different than the facts of the case. In her back and forth with the FBI, they even went so far as to clarify that it was not a crime to recall something you actually saw and state it in a way that is slightly off from what truly happened.
> 2. *Sandy McElroy should be charged with creating and submitting false evidence which is a felony in Missouri and in most states.* She completely and totally fabricated a journal months after the murder, never mentioned it to the FBI, and was allowed to actually show it to the prosecutors and grand jury as a form of proof she was telling the truth.
> 3. *Prosecutor Bob McCulloch, who undoubtedly will not resign until hell freezes over and pigs fly, should at the very least explain why Sandy McElroy was called to testify*. Having taken months and months to run the grand jury system, McCulloch was well aware of who she was, but clearly believed she should remain anyway.
> 4. *A special prosecutor should be appointed and a new grand jury convened immediately*. Gov. Jay Nixon still has the power to do such a thing—as does a circuit court judge in Missouri. Typically this would only happen in cases in which it can be proven that the prosecutor went out of his or her way to support the defendant in a case and the evidence for that in this case grows daily.





Agree?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Dec 19, 2014)

Grasping at straws again?  It seems that the jury was not as impressed by conflicting witness testimony as by the behavior and the forensic evidence...


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 19, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> Grasping at straws again?  It seems that the jury was not as impressed by conflicting witness testimony as by the behavior and the forensic evidence...



Obviously you have not been listening.. OR reading the news.. ANd it's clear you didn't read my link.    She is totally discredited an no one is denying it... SHE in fact is admitting it... So WHAT straws would those be Ralphy?.   Many of us smelled a rotting rat from the beginning.. and we have been proven right.  Hopefully this will be done the right way. as it should have been from the beginning..


----------



## WhatInThe (Dec 19, 2014)

Most cases, especially high profile ones wind up with dud witnesses or testimony. But you still had the remaining witnesses and physical evidence. And a grand jury is not a trial which means no cross examination. I think too many have gotten used to televised/analyzed trials. This was not a trial. If nothing else her "testimony shouldn't be used in the future. 

The local authorities blew it with poor and slow disclosure. They over played the political game. Early physical evidence disclosure would've put a lot of speculation to rest.

The Gardner and child hit by the grenade case is where the national protestors need to focus.


----------



## 911 (Dec 19, 2014)

I believe each person needs to not only read, but understand the language and how it is legally interrupted as to what a Grand Jury investigation is all about and how it plays into the system. I have read many posts regarding the Ferguson case and honestly, I have to say that no one has hit upon the main reason as to why the Officer in this case was not charged. 

Its's there, but you need to have a full 100% understanding of Grand Juries and just what their duty is. I will not go beyond this because it will only bring about more discussion and turn this thread into something that is not good or productive. I hope that you can respect my decision as to why I do not want to continue commenting on this issue.

I also realize hat my comments will no doubt bring about some sort of perhaps, negative response because the issue in of itself is debatable.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 19, 2014)

I agree, they should throw that skank in jail for perjury and have her accompanied by the "prosecutor"....and make things right.


----------



## WhatInThe (Dec 19, 2014)

911 said:


> I believe each person needs to not only read, but understand the language and how it is legally interrupted as to what a Grand Jury investigation is all about and how it plays into the system. I have read many posts regarding the Ferguson case and honestly, I have to say that no one has hit upon the main reason as to why the Officer in this case was not charged.
> 
> Its's there, but you need to have a full 100% understanding of Grand Juries and just what their duty is. I will not go beyond this because it will only bring about more discussion and turn this thread into something that is not good or productive. I hope that you can respect my decision as to why I do not want to continue commenting on this issue.
> 
> I also realize hat my comments will no doubt bring about some sort of perhaps, negative response because the issue in of itself is debatable.



Grand jury understanding is one thing. But just as troubling is the crowd that says he just should've been tried. You can't put people on trial just because you feel like it. You can't treat a trial like an investigative tool. New information many come out but it should an affirmation of existing testimony and evidence. The same crowd that wants a trial would be the first screaming persecution if put on trial with little evidence.


----------



## AZ Jim (Dec 19, 2014)

Jail her to show that presenting false testimony in this type of inquirey has it's rammifications.


----------



## AprilT (Dec 19, 2014)

If she purgered herself in the way it is described, than she should be punished or once again the system is nothing more than a joke as usual with rules that apply only as some seem fit to assign at their whim.

As far as a grand jury in some instances, it is just a way to pass the buck, it's a joke as far as I'm concerned in the Ferguson case more so than not.  Yes, it is understood it was supposedly held to see if there was enough reason ie evidence to bring a case to trial, but it really wasn't necessary for this to be tossed over to a grand jury, they were a scapegoat, nothing more.  This was as many people realized a way to appear as if they were operating on the up and up. They know it, the people know and many legal professionals that have looked at this mess know it.  This is coming from me from the standpoint of how this worked in a legal sense, again, I have no love for criminals, you need to be out there living correct or what happens happens, but at the same time, three or more wrongs aren't making this all right for society, criminal acts are criminal acts, regardless of who and how they are perpetrating them including misuse of your position within the law.  There are many who need to come correct in this situation.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 19, 2014)

Again.... the function of a Grand Jury is NOT to try a case, but to simply say there is a cause to try a case.  Witness #40 was really all the Prosecutor had to insure that the Grand Jury did NOT issue and indictment... ALL the other witnesses were stating what WOULD have insured an indictment... Yet those were ignored or found to be suspect by this Prosecutor..  NOW... we need to have a brand new Grand Jury, with another prosecutor.. OR we need the Feds to simply go ahead and have this case tried.   McCulough needs to be disbared..  Witness #40 need to go to jail.


----------



## Denise1952 (Dec 19, 2014)

I think this video is interesting, and believable because it makes sense that the grand jury would want to "weed" out any garbage.  That witness # 40 doesn't sound like the only one they suspected of lying, or making up stories:

[video]http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justice/ferguson-witnesses-credibility/[/video]

Oh, this is CNN so it could be one of the "full of crap" stations you guys talk about, sorry if it is.  I just thought it was interesting.

PS and I am understanding more about this process of "finding out if it should even go to trial" so yes, this was not a trial like on Perry Mason.  It seems to me it's like a "showing" of what evidence has been gathered, and allowing all these people to be interviewed in front of the public.


----------



## AprilT (Dec 19, 2014)

Grand jury proceedings are held in secret they aren't held in front of the public, a witness doesn't get to have anyone other than an interpreter present, the grand jury, the prosecutor, attorneys for the government and a court reporter are the only ones allowed in the room.  Not a public showing and usually what takes place isn't made public except in extenuating situations such as this case.

Denise, good video find.


----------



## Denise1952 (Dec 19, 2014)

Ok, thanks April, I don't know much about them as you can tell.  So if it's in secret, but extenuating circumstances, how much of the proceeding are we told about.  All of it, or only what they want us to know.


----------



## AprilT (Dec 19, 2014)

nwlady said:


> Ok, thanks April, I don't know much about them as you can tell.  So if it's in secret, but extenuating circumstances, how much of the proceeding are we told about.  All of it, or only what they want us to know.



Because of the circumstances and hoopla around this case much more people have been allowed access to the documented information, so though the public or professionals of other sorts weren't allowed during testimony, certain aspects those in charge deem ok to have been made public and now lawyers and media have been given accesses to this information and are going through it with a fine tooth comb.  There are of course instances where information may remain locked when deemed necessary for various reasons in on going cases.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 19, 2014)

Not all all Grand Jury proceedings are kept secret.. It depends on the State..   New York does not allow the procedings to ever be made public. Missouri will allow transcripts to be made public after the fact.


----------



## AprilT (Dec 19, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> *Not all all Grand Jury proceedings are kept secret*.. It depends on the State..   New York does not allow the procedings to ever be made public. Missouri will allow transcripts to be made public after the fact.



Never said as much.  Said the proceeding are held in secrecy, some information may remain so depending upon circumstances.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 19, 2014)

The "prosecutor" knew that witnesses like her were lying, and he does not intend to recommend perjury charges against them...http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikehayes/st-louis-prosecutor-says-he-knew-witnesses-lied#.yllNj6D9gO


----------



## Georgia Lady (Dec 19, 2014)

I read all of the story today.  Very disheartened with our Justice System.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 20, 2014)

.   What does that mean should happen?  Shouldn't this go to another Grand Jury? 

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/12/...sses-clearly-lied/21119156/?icid=maing-grid7|


----------

