The Tea Leaves Seem to Say Darren Wilson Won’t Be Indicted

Now let me start by saying that the merits of the Darren Wilson/Mike Brown case will not be discussed.  I already discussed the applicable law, here, and the evidence is pretty much all over the place.  The only thing to add is that the legal standard is probable cause.  Black’s Law Dictionary (6^th Edition, if you are playing along at home) defines that as:

Reasonable cause; having more evidence for than against. A reasonable ground for belief in certain alleged facts.  A set of probabilities grounded in the factual and practical considerations which govern the decisions of reasonable and prudent persons and more than a mere suspicion but less than the quantum of evidence required for conviction.

It is a low standard, especially given that the accused has no right to defend himself—although bluntly, if I was on a Grand Jury, I would at least want to hear the accused side of the story.  There are some who think that the Grand Jury can’t call its own witnesses—that they can only hear what the prosecutor puts in front of him, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.  Still, it is often said that a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich.

Anyway, besides rumors to the effect that there won’t be an indictment (here and here) we are seeing other indicia that an indictment won’t occur.  First, you have this little tidbit:

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon declared a state of emergency and activated the National Guard Monday afternoon ahead of a grand jury decision on whether to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown.

Citing the possibility of “expanded unrest,” the executive order grants Missouri Highway Patrol, St. Louis County police and St. Louis Metropolitan police the power “to operate as a Unified Command to protect civil rights and ensure public safety in the City of Ferguson and the St. Louis region.”

Mind you, that isn’t “new” news—this was four days ago, after all—but this is not a breathless breaking news piece.  This is picking up a few pieces here and there, and this is the first.  On a similar note, I just learned as I wrote this that Ferguson schools are closing next week.

And how is all of this a useful tea leaf?  Well, as I said in response to a similar story, which equally counts as a tea leaf:

They're expecting the pro-police side to riot, right? RT @FoxNews: #FBI warns #Ferguson grand jury decision 'will likely' lead to violence
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) November 18, 2014

As often is the case, there was a point to my humor.  (I mean sometimes, there isn’t but often there is.)  No one is seriously saying that Darren Wilson’s supporters are going to riot or be otherwise unruly if he is indicted.  The only fear is that the Michael Brown supporters might get violent.  And there is real cause for concern.  Two items from today.  First, this:

Protesters in Ferguson have been threatening to rape the wives of front line police and kill their children during the latest clashes, the wife of one officer has claimed.

The unnamed woman said that her husband has been 'screamed at' as he faced off with the angry crowds amid heightened tensions in the suburb of St Louis, Missouri.

She told Fox 2 News that they threatened a home invasion in an apparent attempt to provoke the officers.

The wife claimed the protesters said: 'We're going to go to your house. 'We`re going to rape your wives then we`re going to kill them and we`re going to kill your children'.

And then, this:

Protesters in Ferguson, Mo., have taken to the streets and chosen not to wait for a grand jury’s decision before clashing with police once again. A grand jury is expected to decide whether to indict police officer Darren Wilson, who is accused of shooting 18-year-old Michael Brown, in the coming days. But protesters made their voices heard outside the Ferguson Police Department on Thursday night shouting, “What do we want? Darren Wilson! How do we want him? Dead!”

I could be wrong in my fears.  I hope I am wrong.  But it's reasonable to fear that the protests will turn violent if there isn’t an indictment.  And the fact that both the FBI and the governor of Missouri seem to expect violence when the decision is announced suggests 1) they know what the decision is, and 2) it is not to indict.  If they didn’t know what the decision would be, they would be much more iffy about the violence, I would think.  And if they knew it was going to be an indictment, they’d be much less worried about rioting.

But I think the more powerful evidence that it will come out in his favor is the rumor that Darren Wilson was in final negotiations over his resignation.

Now, the reality is that Wilson probably can’t walk a beat again in Fergusson.  I’m not saying it is right—if a Grand Jury refuses to indict it means he did nothing wrong, and indeed he is probably in the right.  But the fact is that the locals will not react well to him walking around.  He probably looks over his shoulder going to the grocery store in his civies, and apparently he has been missing court dates where he was needed to testify.

Now the same link shows that some are denying such negotiations are happening, but the story also indicated that there was a fear that knowledge of such negotiations would influence the Grand Jury: so in other words, they have a reason to lie.

So let’s tease this out a little bit.  Why would they have to negotiate a resignation?  Well, I haven’t read Wilson’s labor contract, but I am willing to bet he cannot be fired, except for cause.  And I bet “innocently being a disruption” is not cause, or at least there is enough doubt on this point to make the city’s lawyers nervous.  So they are negotiating a buyout.  And that only makes sense if he is not going to be indicted.  If he is, I am willing to bet they can at least suspend him until the trial and then fire him for cause if convicted.  This suggests there isn’t going to be a trial.

These are just rumors and of course, tea leaves are a hit and miss prospect.  So take that with a grain of salt.  And whatever Wilson is saying publicly, he is probably still anxious.  I have been kind of famously falsely accused (and exonerated by video evidence), and I can say that Wilson is not likely to feel fully relieved until and unless the case officially ends.  And if there is no indictment, then I think every effort has to be made to explain to the public why there isn't one, so those who object might be persuaded to accept it.  This is complicated by the traditional secrecy of Grand Jury proceedings, but if one Grand Juror had the courage to come forward and explain in detail why s/he couldn't indict (still assuming they doesn't indict), or if the Grand Jury wrote a thoughtful report, that could do a great deal of good.

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist (and adjudicated pedophile) Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the donation link on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.