Witness 40: Daily Kos’ Contiuned Grasp at Racial Straws Over Ferguson

by Ex-Leftist

12/19/2014

 

I had forgotten this racist lunatic known as Shaun King existed. I had come across some ridiculous tweets of his about Officer Wilson which were laden with racist conspiracy theories and the usual presumption of guilt based on watching TV programs featuring reams of unproven witness claims. I tweeted him about it challenged his poor attitude. Unsurprisingly, he blocked me shortly thereafter.

This “What about Witness 40” flap on Left media has turned into quite a sensation. All that holds it together is the usual moral blinders and single-sided scrutiny we expect from people from the Left ideological camp.

King is a perfect example of the wanton racism and moral bankruptcy of the political Left. Only against light-skinned racial outsiders killing a dark-skinned person do we see the mentality of guilty before proven innocent where conclusions are based on trial by public opinion and lynch mob-style demands for blood are made  –  all before the accused has their right to have their say, let alone before they are proven guilty of anything.

The Daily Kos and Shaun King are vitriolic racists. Both of them have a history of publishing raw emotional outbursts bereft of any coherent adult-like thinking. King’s article here is literally nothing short of an enraged racial rant; it makes no sense whatsoever. It is titled, “4 things that should happen now that we know the truth about Witness #40, a white supremacist.”

Apparently both the Daily Kos and King are too lazy to read through multiple released witness interviews, for they’d discover there were a number of witnesses that gave false accounts – mostly in favor of Michael Brown. Why fixate on one? Because you’re suffering sour grape syndrome because you stupidly concluded Officer Wilson guilty back in August of 2014, long before the investigation was complete let alone a Grand Jury convened?

Indeed, if the honesty of witnesses here was the real issue, we’d have seen the same four demands from King regardless of which witness was found to be deceptive. But we don’t and we never will.

1. Sandy McElroy should be immediately charged with perjury.

If this were the case, then by all means charge Witness 16 and every other black witness who was caught lying by investigators claiming Brown was brutalized by the cop.

2. Sandy McElroy should be charged with creating and submitting false evidence which is a felony in Missouri and in most states.

We saw similar from Crystal Mangum, the mentally ill stripper (and later convicted murderer) who tried to frame the Duke University Lacrosse team. She wasn’t charged either, so saying this is some kind of racial atrocity is just plain stupid and King needs to look at the world with something other than confirmation bias.

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.

Again why just her? Lots of false witnesses were taken — but again King and the Daily Kos are only fixating on one because it’s ideologically opportune to do so.

4. A special prosecutor should be appointed and a new grand jury convened immediately.

Because a single mentally deranged woman said something the Kos and King don’t like?

Every trial has a risk of having bad witnesses testify in them. That’s as old as Father Time. Such things do not make or break a case, especially when it’s been shown that multiple bad witnesses came out in favor of Brown and we see no objection here nor demands for their being prosecuted or anything else. Do you think other witnesses were tracked down online and their social media footprint gone over with a fine-toothed comb by King and the Kos?

No, they’re scratching desperately for a reason to declare the verdict invalid and protect their beliefs.

And as usual the way to do it is by invoking moral double standards and subjecting members of only one race to a fine-toothed comb.

 

If these people were truly concerned about jury misconduct and railroading of a case, then perhaps they should reconsider revisiting the Civil Rights trial against Laurence Powell and Stacey Koon on behalf of multiple-felon Rodney King. After the guilty verdict it was discovered a number of jury improprieties including but not limited to a woman named Maria Esquibel and Juror D:

A juror called Juror C was concerned about Esquibel’s attitude: “I thought that Maria at times had an agenda and wanted to follow that rather than participate fully in deliberations.” It turns out that Esquibel’s father, Webster Moore, was a one-time militant black radical in the 60s who had ties with Black Panther Huey Newton and radical activist Angela Davis. Moore saw himself as a part of a struggle against “oppressive government,” had been beaten by LAPD officers in 1971 during a student riot and needed 18 stitches. The Orange County Register in an interview with him August 1, 1993, quoted him as saying about his daughter the juror was “really able to identify with another human being beaten by a power so great that he didn’t have any recourse” and that he “had a special interest in the trial, and that it was a personal thrill seeing his daughter chosen as a juror… ‘I can only feel I did something right [in raising her].'”*

Juror D was quoted in a signed affidavit as publicly boasting about his anti-police prejudice and manipulating the jury to get a guilty verdict. In May of 1993 just over a month after the trial verdicts against Koon and Powell,

In may of 1993 I spoke with Juror D. He told me he had been a juror in the case of US V Stacey Koon and was interested in getting on various talk shows. He spoke of others who had gotten on talk shows. He told me about his interest in completing a movie deal to tell his story…. On May 20, 1993, Juror D came to talk to my two sections of Group Discussion. He spoke about his experience on the jury, and answered questions from the students.

Juror D told my classes that he was a regular marijuana user, but he knew that marijuana users could not be jurors. He stated that before he was selected as a juror he was asked some questions on a lengthy questionnaire and by a panel of lawyers, but was never asked specifically if he was a regular marijuana user. He laughed as he recounted [how] their failure to ask him a specific question about his regular marijuana use allowed him to get on the jury…

At one point Juror D was asked by one of the students how he felt about the defendants. Juror D angrily responded, “I hate those cops. They should be in cages.” He then spoke about how “proud” he was that he had managed to convince seven strangers to vote for guilt.*

 

So if you all want to go on about juries with questionably-motivated jurors with clear conflicts of interest, I’m all for it.

Whining about a bad witness? That’s child’s play. Talk to Sgt. Stacey Koon, LAPD.

SgtStaceyKoon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let’s just be honest about it and not only bitch when a case doesn’t go your way, okie?

 

* Willful Injustice: A Post-O.J. Look at Rodney King, American Justice, and Trial by Race by Robert Dietz, pp. 129-130.