Sometimes, cops and/or prosecutors fabricate evidence. And I’m glad they do. Simple, out and out lying can be very difficult or even impossible to expose, but when amateur fiction writers – and that’s what cops and prosecutors are when they fabricate evidence – make things up they are liable to screw up, revealing themselves as evidence fabricators and, you know, bad fiction writers.
Like say I’m writing a novel today but set in the 1920’s and I have a scene where some characters are having a conversation and one of the characters mentions the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, or the Kennedy assassination.
So apparently this “diary” mysteriously appeared and was used in the Ferguson Grand Jury presentation, from some unidentified witness (#40), describing the relevant events consistently with an account that would exonerate the police officer. I came across this story courtesy of the brilliant Andrew Roth and can’t improve upon what he has already set forth here. And you need to follow the links. Because this story should really get around.
Bottom line is that this “diary” is an obvious fabrication – because preposterous – and let’s hope Charles Pierce, Esquire’s politics blogger, connects the dots more fully and we get answers from the Ferguson DA about using that evidence, which he knew was false, before a Grand Jury.
Now, I know this is hard for a lot of people to swallow, the idea that someone has had to confront not just inaccurate evidence, but wholly made up evidence, and wholly made up evidence by the government at that. For most people this is unthinkable, unspeakable, and highly disturbing, not least because this could happen to them. Obviously.
This reluctance – this denial – can lead to bizarre results, where people become, let’s face it, functionally stupid. The prosecutor here should have a lot to explain along the “what-did-he-know-and-when-did-he-know-it” lines, and if he can’t that might just be the end of his “career” as a prosecutor, and frankly there might be no good explanation because he’s either complicit in the dishonesty or…stupid.
Yes, he should have a lot of explaining to do. Operative word is “should”.
But will anyone in the mainstream press, as opposed to just a few bloggers, pick up on this story and run with it, generating the pressure that will force him to have to explain? I guess we’ll see, but believe it or not there’s a good chance the mainstream press won’t, and that nothing will come of this smoking gun type evidence other than Pierce and Roth and me blogging about it.
After all, nothing has come of the Ashley Baker statement, which surfaced in September of 2006:
And a lot of intelligent people seem to have trouble seeing that the story told in that statement is obviously preposterous and therefore a fabrication by whoever generated it, and we know who generated it, and who used it (or, properly speaking its derivatives) before a Grand Jury, and this wasn’t done to exonerate someone but rather to indict and ultimately imprison someone.
I’m going to let readers put two and two together there rather than walk them through all that. For anyone even remotely paying attention, there should be at minimum a horrible fascination about it all. For anyone new to these pages, background can be found here.
Of course, to say that it is frustrating when, after all the lying and cheating you can’t prove screws things up for some poor bastard – because, you know, you couldn’t prove it – it then turns out not to even matter when you absolutely positively have proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt – well, to call that ‘frustrating’ doesn’t seem to quite capture it, does it?
So I hope this time it matters, and that a prosecutor who deliberately presented false evidence to a Grand Jury to get the result he wanted – mocking them and the whole system, including me – is punished for doing that. Or something.
Just remember, there is a school of thought among prosecutors that it’s okay to deliberately present perjury and/or fabricated evidence to a Grand Jury. Or was some such school of thought. Maybe the Department of Justice has changed its mind, since they have removed the Grand Jury training manual that used to teach this from their official web page (used to be right here; now as you can see, you just get a blank page).