St. Louis District Attorney Robert McCulloch broke his silence on a Missouri radio program on Friday, December 19 and he admitting to willfully using witnesses he knew were lying in at least some portions of their testimony. He thought it would "present the entire picture." 

In the case of Witness no. 40, who is the only witness that backed up officer Darren Wilson's version of events, "I'm sure she was nowhere near the place," McCulloch said. "She recounted a statement that was right out of the newspapers." He was also certain that the press would latch on to her history (she switched her reason for being in the neighborhood -- despite living many miles away -- to some sort of anthropological sojourn she took to have conversations with black residents, so that she'd learn to stop using the "n" word. But she was also found to be posting that very word she was consciously uncoupling with, all over her Facebook. Facebook is also where she was helping to raise money for Officer Wilson, and clicking "like" on friend's links about Michael Brown stealing cigars; oh, and she'd previously reported false information to the police.) Yeah, they latched on, all right.

McCulloch said he expected "criticism" for his use of witnesses, because from the outset, he decided "that anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything" was going to on the stand (emphasis added). If he hadn't have called them to the stand, people would've wondered why, was his reason to give everyone a shake. Regardless of whether he believed them or not.

So, basically, he just did it because he could. To paint "the entire picture."

Some of the interview is transcribed below, but the entire radio interview is in the video at the top of the page.

 

KTRS (McGraw Millhaven): 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: Well, early on, I decided that anyone who 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'd be discussing now why I didn't put those witnesses on. Even though their statements were not accurate.

So my determination was to put everybody on and let the grand jurors assess their credibility, which they did. This grand jury poured their hearts and souls into this. It was a very emotional few months for them. It took a lot of them. I wanted to put everything on there. I thought it was much more important to present everything and everybody, and some that, yes, clearly were not telling the truth. No question about it.

There were people who came in and, yes, absolutely lied under oath.Some lied to the FBI. Even though they're not under oath, that's another potential offense — a federal offense.

I thought it was much more important to present the entire picture…

There's talk of one witness now, and some of the media is doing exactly what I said they would do, they pull out one witness and just latch on to that, and this lady clearly wasn't present when this occurred. She recounted a statement that was right out of the newspaper about Wilson's actions, and right down the line with Wilson's actions. Even though I'm sure she was nowhere near the place.

[via Buzzfeed]