Recently, it has been discovered that several of the many people who were acting as witnesses to the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri had actually perjured their statements in court. When asked if his testimony was completely made up, one witness simply admitted, while another was found guilty of lying when her testimony did not match the other descriptions and the way she said she left the scene was impossible.
Several witnesses admitted to making up their testimonies or relaying what they had heard from others who had actually seen the events transpire. These perjuries beg the question, "Why would the prosecution allow such inconsistent and unreliable witnesses to take the stand, when they would typically streamline the case?" and some believe that it was on purpose in order to avoid indictment in the case".
A Chief police officer in Brooklyn explained that in high profile and controversial cases such as this one, the prosecution often throws excess amounts of information and evidence at the court because they believe that if they omit one piece of evidence, it will reflect badly on them for their career and they will be targeted by the family of the victim. He says this is typical with these cases, and while he is satisfied with the outcome of the case, he is not pleased with the process by which it was reached".
No comments:
Post a Comment