Extreme media bias: CNN reporter says she was “shocked” to find out there were black witnesses whose testimony backed Darren Wilson

On November 25, 2014, CNN reporter Ashleigh Banfield said:

“I was shocked at the corroborative witnesses that backed Officer Wilson’s story. I didn’t know there was as many as there were and I didn’t know they were African-American.”

For crying out loud – she is a reporter at cable’s first all news network! If she didn’t know this until now, how could the general population have known it?

No wonder why so many people think Michael Brown was “murdered.”

Anyone who reads real news websites, such as Drudge Report and Free Republic, is not “shocked” about the existence of these witnesses, because we already knew about them a long time ago.

This proves that the mainstream media has failed to do its job in covering this news story.

Advertisements

December 3, 2014. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Media bias, Politics, Racism.

5 Comments

  1. EDell replied:

    But it still proves nothing about who’s telling the truth and who isn’t. There was no cross-examination in that whole grand jury process. It was little more than they said/they said. It’s probably because of the conflicting testimonies between one group of theys and another that neither outweighed the other and, as such, the grand jury couldn’t hand down an indictment. Funnily enough, the data dump singles out the journal entries of a self-admitted white racist who just so happened to drive into the “black part” of town on that very day and supposedly witnessed what happened and recorded it in his journal with his broken English writing (he was uneducated, no doubt, seemingly having barely finished grade school), which served as the basis for the jury ultimately deciding not to indict Wilson. It’s laughable. To cut through the mud of it all, you need cross-examination, and you especially need to cross-examine Wilson in order to understand if he truly was justified in pumping 8 bullets into an unarmed black man, because that’s the real issue, not some pilfering of cigarillos from a store which Wilson knew nothing about when he first stopped Brown. As it is, the story is long from over as two separate investigations continue and Wilson could still be charged with something and this time he, and others, will be cross-examined in order to get the story straight. The grand jury process is essentially a farce, a waste of time, energy and money, especially when it’s populated by 9 whites and 3 blacks to judge something that happened in a town of 7 blacks to 3 whites and one that was spearheaded by a white prosecutor whose own dad was murdered by a black man – hardly a basis of any objectivity on his part, I’d say, and a decent prosecutor would’ve recused himself in that matter.

    • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

      There’s also this:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/authorities-say-michael-browns-blood-found-on-gun-inside-police-car/2014/10/18/577e1a9a-56f2-11e4-ba4b-f6333e2c0453_story.html

      Authorities say Michael Brown’s blood found on gun, inside police car

      October 18, 2014

      Forensic evidence shows Michael Brown’s blood on the gun, on the uniform and inside the car of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, law enforcement officials said, information they believe potentially corroborates the officer’s story that the unarmed 18-year-old tried to take his gun.

      • EDell replied:

        No, it doesn’t corroborate any information that Brown tried to get the gun. You see, without cross-examination you don’t know what really happened, you’re only getting Wilson’s side of the story. It’s just as conceivable, and more credible, that Wilson actually went for his own gun to protect himself against, as he put it, a “Hulk Hogan” to his own feeling of being “a five-year-old.” Both men were about 6’5″ and over 200 lbs and the cop felt like “a five-year-old”? Even I could shred his story on the stand. Interestingly, the version of events that Wilson gave the cops when it happened is somewhat different than what he described at the grand jury.

      • danfromsquirrelhill replied:

        OK. Those are good points.

        Too bad it wasn’t recorded on video.

        Here’s another article:

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/michael-brown-shooting_n_6030220.html

        Several Black Witnesses Largely Back Up Officer’s Account Of Michael Brown Shooting

        October 22, 2014

        Over a half-dozen black witnesses who have testified before a grand jury deciding whether to indict the police officer who killed Michael Brown have provided testimony that “largely supports” Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson’s account of events

  2. EDell replied:

    And just as many, if not more, contradicted Wilson’s story.

    As you can see by the chart, there’s no definitive conclusion that could be arrived at without cross-examination, which the grand jury doesn’t engage in. Not only that, but the investigation in Ferguson was still ongoing when the so-called “complete” evidence was presented to the grand jury, meaning their decision was actually based on incomplete evidence presented. So then what the hell is the point of a grand jury in the first place, especially if it’s given incomplete evidence and since if it doesn’t indict someone, it still doesn’t negate any civil or federal action against that someone? Not only that, but grand juries are largely made up of law illiterate people, which is why a judge should oversee such preliminary hearings to determine what goes to trial and what doesn’t, not lay people. Lay people are what a regular jury trial is for. The US is about the only country in the world now that uses the ponderous, antiquated and mostly prosecutor-driven grand jury system (the prosecutor actually decides which way the grand jury will vote by the kind of “evidence” he decides to present, such as incomplete evidence during an ongoing investigation). It’s about time the US dumped its 19th century ways and start moving in step with the rest of the civilized world in the 21st century. Even Britain, from whom the US adopted the grand jury system, dumped it 80 years ago, having seen it for the needless redundancy and absurdity it became.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback URI

%d bloggers like this: