"Here's the thing, though. When Sandy McElroy was called before the grand jury, she had already been thoroughly discredited by the FBI . . . .  That she was allowed to testify before the grand jury on two different dates and produce fake evidence on her second trip is a scandal of epic proportions. That her testimony has become so popular among conservatives says as much about them as it does about Sandy McElroy."
What possible motive could DA McCulloch have had to produce such a travesty of the grand jury process -- except to make it so confusing to the grand jury that they couldn't possibly put together a coherent enough explanation to indict Darren Wilson?

McCulloch told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch yesterday that:  "Clearly some [witnesses] were not telling the truth."   But, he said, he wanted "anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything. . . presented to the grand jury," and that he didn't have regrets about calling non-credible witnesses.

Why bother to investigate a murder?    Why pay prosecutors?   Why not just hold an open town hall meeting and let anyone who wants to come and testify, lie, whatever . . . ?    Isn't our criminal justice system supposed to include some expertise from the prosecutors?  Isn't the process supposed to benefit from that?

This is beyond strange . . .  and it is completely indefensible for a public prosecutor.    One legal expert said on MSNBC Friday night that it goes beyond questionable strategy and, depending on what McCulloch knew about witness #40 and when he knew it, could actually constitute ethical or even criminal charges against McCulloch.   Well, obviously he knew she was lying before he allowed her to testify, and then called her back a second time.

There are remedies.   The governor could step in and appoint a special prosecutor.   The Department of Justice could bring a federal case.    It cannot be allowed to just rest on the colossal poor judgment of Bob McCulloch.