St. Louis Prosecutor's Office Busted Altering Evidence; Reassembled Non-Operable McCloskey Pistol To Classify As Lethal

If I were them, I'd absolutely not plead guilty. I'd represent myself and have all the fun I could with the CA.

Then I'd explore every avenue for suing her. I trust these people to know the ins and outs of that kind of law.

There’s virtually no legal mechanism for holding prosecutors accountable for misconduct. There are plenty of cases in which courts dismiss charges having literally found the prosecution to have committed misconduct and yet absolutely nothing happens to them. So good luck with that. It’s just a fantasy.
 
I actually kind of wish the prosecutor was stupid enough to try to go ahead with this case and then I would want to see Saint Louis get anally raped in a USC 1983 lawsuit or similar where they would certainly lose. Main reason being maybe if the city lost a couple of million bucks maybe it would finally kill the bullshit that is qualified immunity for prosecutors. IMHO the Nifongs of the World need to be put in prison for life...

Lol. A couple million will change things? Cities have collectively paid out BILLIONS in settling or losing lawsuits over the past 5 or so years.
 
Lol. A couple million will change things? Cities have collectively paid out BILLIONS in settling or losing lawsuits over the past 5 or so years.
I agree with your skepticism I think it's just wishful thinking on my part given that qualified immunity is under a lot of fire right now....
 
So the crime lab and lead detective report that the DA asked them to falsify evidence and the response of the DA is to get a favorable Grand Jury to indict the victims in order to protect the DA from charges of falsifying evidence by claiming the victims falsified evidence.

Uh huh.... yeah if the DoJ was full of Deep State holdovers someone would be getting a perp walk for USC civil rights violations under the color of law and conspiracy charges.
 
I’d love to read the GJ testimony put forward to get a true bill...did the GJ hear the facts? Perhaps a twisted version of the facts put forth to secure indictment for political purpose and/or gain 🤔
 
That explains why she was waving it around like she was.
This just makes this whole story more f**ked up than it already was.
What a shit show!

This. What moron gives his wife a non-operable pistol???? I mean, except for one that is looking for his wife to get rubbed out by a mob, that is. LOL
 
I’d love to read the GJ testimony put forward to get a true bill...did the GJ hear the facts? Perhaps a twisted version of the facts put forth to secure indictment for political purpose and/or gain 🤔

I have sat on a Grand Jury before and the DAs do a great job of coaching and only presenting evidence favorable to the case they have built. And when an individual juror questions any of this groupthink takes over to squash any dissent. It is a totally one sided affair.
 
This. What moron gives his wife a non-operable pistol???? I mean, except for one that is looking for his wife to get rubbed out by a mob, that is. LOL

We all know what really happened here. Kudos for the fast footwork only a lawyer would have the gall to try and pull off...
 
I have sat on a Grand Jury before and the DAs do a great job of coaching and only presenting evidence favorable to the case they have built. And when an individual juror questions any of this groupthink takes over to squash any dissent. It is a totally one sided affair.

I knew a guy that sat on a grand jury for a month. I wanna say Boston so it might have been federal. He and the other jurors came to an understanding. There was no way they were adjudicating the cases. And the evidence was CLEARLY going to be biased. But if it passed just minimal muster, they voted to charge. They figured the prosecutor knows what he's doing and any misconduct or incompetence would come out in trial. I think it was federal the more I think about it. Has to be 20-25 yrs ago. Definitely pre-Pier-4-Court.
 
I just finished some reading, and it sounds like
a grand juror who thinks that someone is testilying
can at least establish conditions for the defense
to object to the proceedings by such witnesses,
"are you aware of any significant exculpatory evidence
which you have not testified to?".

And it ought to set a perjury trap if it turns out that
the witness lies, and the defense manages to learn of it.
 
Lol so now they are accusing them of the same shit they supposedly were doing? (Tampering with the guns... ) clown world kangaroo courts
 
ST. LOUIS — A judge on Thursday cited improper fundraising emails by Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner’s campaign in disqualifying Garden and her office from prosecuting a gun case against Mark McCloskey, who defended himself by pointing a rifle at rioters attempt to storm his St. Louis home in June.

The the judge’s order by clicking here.

Circuit Judge Thomas Clark II cited two fundraising emails that Gardner’s reelection campaign sent in response to political attacks before and after she charged Mark and Patricia McCloskey with felony gun crimes in July. The judge said the email raised the appearance that Gardner “initiated a criminal prosecution for political purposes.
 
Wonder if it's because the couple could afford to hire much better lawyers,
or merely because they belong to the same country club as the judge...?
(^ Not saying that's the case; jus' sayin').
More like if they were found guilty there would be grounds for appeal...
 
(As everyone is well aware), there are giant black passages
in the video that YoutUbe is serving.
  1. Glitch on the part of KSDK-TV Ch. 5/NBC?
  2. Glitch on the part of YoutUbe?
  3. Deliberate censorship by YoutUbe?
Scant seasons ago, only a batshit crazy tinfoiler
would have picked Door Number Three.

And then YoutUbe completely ruined their brand.


Did they flush billions of dollars down the toilet with that move?
Or is billions of dollars just the tip of the iceberg on how much future earnings
they threw on the bonfire of the public's utter distrust?
 
(As everyone is well aware), there are giant black passages
in the video that YoutUbe is serving.

There wasn't. It must have been edited and uploaded again. Perhaps I watched it in the old link but I saw it. It was more about the political party backing her and her decision to pursue charges.
 
Gardner probably already has résumés in with Rachel Rollins and Maura Healey. I'm sure they would welcome her with open arms (& in Maura's case open legs as well)
 
Back
Top Bottom