McCulloch, “Prosecutor” Admits “Witnesses” Lied (VIDEO)

Bob McCulloch joins The McGraw Show

McCulloch, Michael Brown Grand Jury “Prosecutor” Admits “Witnesses” Lied or Were Not There (VIDEO) | girl du jour

Bob McCulloch joins The McGraw Show

Local radio channel KTRS 550, interviews Robert (Bob) McCulloch –

>by: Author girl du jour |12/19/2014 | RePost: 12/21/2014 5:53:48 AM |

Robert McCulloch who is supposed to be the prosecutor for Saint Louis County, and for the Michael Brown shooting, turned out to be a defense attorney for shooter Darren Wilson. Robert McCulloch was interviewed today by McGraw Milhaven at KTRS, so he could give his account on how events have unfolded.

On the even of November 24, the Monday before Thanksgiving, Robert McCulloch chose to announce the Grand Jury’s decision to not indict Darren Wilson. McCulloch was heavily criticized for this because of the ability for criminal elements like Black Bloc and other agitators to hide under cover of darkness as they wreaked havoc in and around Ferguson.

McCulloch said that he worked very closely with law enforcement on the decision about when to release the decision. It’s later been shown that law enforcement may have been responsible for some of the worst vandalism and damage to the area.

McCulloch was asked if he had any regrets about the timing of the release of the Grand Jury’s decision. For example, should he have waited until the following morning? McCulloch states that he has no regrets and the events that happened afterward “was unfortunate”.

McCulloch states that he released as much of the information that the Grand Jury has received as possible, but “there was some that we missed.” He goes on further to state that, “it took a while to get those redacted and get those prepared…”

Interviewer, McGraw Milhaven, asks McCulloch, “You allowed witnesses where you and your staff questioned their reliability, questioned whether they actually were there, if they had the right information, their stories changed once they were questioned about it… Why did you allow people to testify in front of the Grand Jury in which you knew their information was either flat out wrong, or flat out lying or just weren’t telling the truth?”

McCulloch responds with, “Early on I decided that anyone that claimed to have witnessed anything was going to be presented to the Grand Jury.  And I knew that no matter how I handled it there would be criticism of it, so if I didn’t put those witnesses on then we would be discussing why I didn’t put those witnesses on–even though their statements were not accurate.  My determination was to put everybody on and let the Grand Jurors assess their credibility.”

McCulloch adds, “I thought it was much more important to present anybody and everybody and some of them clearly were not telling the truth.  No question about it.”

Mind you, THERE WAS NO CROSS EXAMINATION!!!  And there will be no perjury charges!!!

Get a strap for your chin, your jaw is going to drop:

St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch Breaks Silence

via McCulloch, Michael Brown Grand Jury “Prosecutor” Admits “Witnesses” Lied or Were Not There (VIDEO) | girl du jour.

St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert (Bob) McCulloch breaks his silence

Professional (Conduct) Candor Rule 3.3 – ABA, Subordinating Perjury …Wow! #DLU_US! This act violates the code of ethics I would think. …This is not the last that we’ll hear about this case. Robert McCulloch “broke the law” is a fact and the Federal Authorities will investigate I would imagine!

First and foremost, Bob should have rescued himself as the lead prosecutor because his dad was killed by Black man. Second Bob McCulloch should’ve informed the Grand Jury of the incredible testimony given by Witness number 40 and others. Now, he should be indicted for his role in letting Witness 40 tell her lies in front of the Grand Jury.

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(3) 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.

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse. Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal

More to follow…


Print Friendly, PDF & Email