Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 26

Original research
Please note that the RFCs have not closed yet, and there is no consensus for [this edit]. There were no BLP violations whatsoever, as the material is impeccably sourced. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Here are some examples of OR in the last edit I reverted (my highlights):
 * McCulloch was the subject of much complaints was focal point in the media before, during and after the grand jury reached its conclusion, acted as a supervisor to the process, but was not present
 * The American grand jury process operates in secret to collect evidence and to test the memory of witnesses against that evidence; this is done to prevent witnesses from altering their testimony to match statements made by previous witnesses. These secret proceedings are not normally made public in cases of no indictment, but in this case it was to provide transparency to the process.
 * Typically, prosecutors come before a grand jury having already screened for probable cause and present a recommended charge. In this case the grand jury process deviated from normal course by acting in an investigative role, with no assurance that any criminal conduct was present

This is not the way to summarize the controversy. We need to do way better than that. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The material was sourced. It is not original research by definition. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Can someone review User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox and decide whether or not they should replace the "Grand Jury" section and the "To grand jury process and result" section. They are not perfect, but I believe they are an improvement over what currently exists. Some data in the current article version will need to be moved and kept elsewhere. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not a bad effort, I must admit, but I have several concerns that could be addressed to receive my support:
 * The first long sentence on the Grand Jury hearing contains unneeded editorializing and OR, as explained in the thread above. Some of the issues were already discussed before, including the "investigative jury" that is a made up classification, and it reads as an apologetic piece for McChulloch. Also, it is too long of a paragraph and could be split into two.
 * The Public reactions section is pretty good, but the way it is constructed, with the criticism first and ending on the supporting statements is not NPOV as it seem to be written to undermine the former. Given that the preponderance of commentary was negative, this presents a false balance. It would be much better if the few "pro" statements are interspersed in the text rather than at the end as of to indicate a conclusion.
 * Dan Abrahams and Toobin's are both quited for the same content. Leave Abrahams as is, and choose a differet summary from Toobin highlighting other commentary he made beyond the "personal invested"
 * -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "McCulloch was the subject of much complaints was focal point in the media before, during and after the grand jury reached its conclusion"....? It should be its own sentence, but is very true and the section deals with that. It is not editorializing it is providing context. Big difference.
 * Criticism -> Rebuttal -> Neutrality holds for McCulloch's section but not each and every. Like the analysis of the material, the third paragraph, which is not "pro" statements. Same with the fifth paragraph with does not end with a positive one - with the complaint which is not addressed at all with a "pro" side as claimed. The final does go with Criticism -> Rebuttal -> Neutrality as explained.
 * Toobin's argument was the COI - this should not be duplicated in response to grand jury, this is clearly an aftermath section because it gives rise to the argument of the way in which it operates. This means that Toobin's section is not complete, it will be further detailed in another paragraph titled "Calls for Reform" or something similar.
 * I'm not saying it is perfect, I do not intend to rewrite the entire article from scratch and balance everything all at once, but this is two major steps and each part needs to be done in piecemeal. I can gladly change parts, but it seems the text is not of major dispute and can be handled by normal editing when it is in the article. The structure seem fine right? That's more important than the argument presentations to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Investigative jury is not a "made up classification". Please refer to our article on grand juries if you are unfamiliar with the role of an investigatory grand jury. Isaidnoway (talk)  19:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is OR in the context of this article. The text above is 100% OR as previously discussed extensively. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not OR as this has been explained to you several times:
 * WaPo - Michael Brown investigative grand jury
 * StL P-D - The grand jury investigating the Aug. 9 shooting
 * CNN - The grand jury investigation into Michael Brown's killing
 * USA Today - The local grand jury that investigated the shooting
 * TIME - The Ferguson case and grand jury investigation
 * Considering the length of time you have been editing this article, you would think you'd be at least aware of the basic facts of this case. The prosecution did not ask for an indictment, the prosecution asked for an investigation. Maybe this is why some of your edits are so problematic. Isaidnoway (talk)  22:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation is wrong. We have discussed this previously quite extensively. Check the archives.  You have been pushing for that interpretation for weeks now. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  02:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And this text is OR: Typically, prosecutors come before a grand jury having already screened for probable cause and present a recommended charge. In this case the grand jury process deviated from normal course by acting in an investigative role, with no assurance that any criminal conduct was present. 100% OR -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is OR because it presumes that Grand Juries act on their own. The grand jury did not deviate from anything. The grand jury was acting on the instructions of the prosecutors. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not OR. The grand jury was investigative and the case was not pre-screened by the prosecution. Investigative grand jury is a term to define an investigation into probable cause for an indictment, which is different from the routine assertion of probable cause and a charge by the prosecution. Please read more on grand juries since you do not understand them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Still 100% OR. There are no sources that make the arguments you are making. and there are many sources that describe the grand jury differently. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - Read WP:OR This is not OR because it comes right from the source. Hence it is not OR. You are the one reading numerous false accounts and sensationalist blogs that greatly misrepresent fact. They are removed by misstatements of fact because they are not reliable for even the use of transcripts. See below, above, all over the place. Ferguson Incident Report exists - NBC was wrong. The Sarge's conversation, six days later. No cover-up on August 15, Jackson's words cherrypicked out of context. Time after time, basic things are being advanced which is out of alignment with the facts. explained this already - you need to figure out what a grand jury can and does do. Some grand jury investigations take years. They are not just rubber stamps on the way to the courthouse. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * More OR from the "legal expert" amongst us. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to see those sources that say this grand jury was not investigating this case to determine probable cause. I would like to see those sources that say McCulloch specifically asked the grand jury for an indictment. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to see those sources that say this grand jury was not investigating this case to determine probable cause. I would like to see those sources that say McCulloch specifically asked the grand jury for an indictment. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no mention or implication in any of those sources that there is a special type of grand jury called an investigative grand jury in Missouri. They simply refer to the investigation of the grand jury, which is what grand juries normally do in Missouri in every single grand jury case. As I mentioned before, there is no legal distinction, and such a distinction isn't useful in this context. Since none of the sources explicitly make reference that the grand jury was of any special type, this is probably OR anyways. --RAN1 (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Btw, this investigative grand jury stuff falls under WP:FRINGE, given the lack of mainstream support for this idea, so unless you have some really strong sources to back this up, this shouldn't even be mentioned. --RAN1 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * U|RAN1 - Based on these reliable sources (certainly not fringe sourcing), please explain to me what is original research or a misinterpretaion of the sources in "describing" this as an investigative grand jury.
 * WaPo - Michael Brown investigative grand jury
 * StL P-D - The grand jury investigating the Aug. 9 shooting
 * CNN - The grand jury investigation into Michael Brown's killing
 * USA Today - The local grand jury that investigated the shooting
 * TIME - The Ferguson case and grand jury investigation
 * Additionally we have a definition from Oxford Dictionary for investigative - of or concerned with investigating something; and a defintion from Merriam-Webster - to make a systematic examination; especially: to conduct an official inquiry.
 * I'm not arguing or implying that there is a legal distinction. I'm just trying to get someone to explain how these reliable sources are considered Original Research or a Fringe View or Unreliable or that they are being Misinterpreted. Because from what I see so far is a failure from anyone to provide a reliable source saying that this was not an investigative grand jury, or in other words, a grand jury that was "concerned with investigating something". So, it looks like to me that you are the one who will have to provide some "really strong sources" to dispute that this grand jury was investigating this case, and it can't be described as such. Isaidnoway (talk)  22:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All grand juries investigate. It's a function of the grand jury.  I think that the only source that explicitly describes it as an "investigative grand jury" is The Volokh Conspiracy, and it's an opinion source that isn't reliable for statements of fact.  I don't think it's original research to call it an "investigative grand jury," I just think it's misleading in light of the fact that there are things that are actually called "investigative grand juries" and it isn't one of those. Dyrnych (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Tl;dr what Dyrnych said. It implies that, given other US states that actually do make the distinction of investigative grand juries, this grand jury was different. The current hypothesis here is it's no different in what it was supposed to do than any other grand jury operating in Missouri. Mind you, I did read the sources posted at 22:29, 27 December (aka the same list you posted at 22:19, 28 December). The context provided in them is that the grand jury was investigating Wilson's case, but there is no mention that they were operating any differently than normal. None of them support the claim you're making. The idea that it was supposed to act differently because it was a different type is a fringe theory, given the lack of supporting sources and evidence to the contrary in Missouri statute. --RAN1 (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You say that "there is no mention that they are operating any differently than normal", but yet this article, and those sources, goes to great lengths to say just that, and then criticizes McCulloch for it. Then you say, "the idea that it was supposed to act differently because it was a different type is a fringe theory", again, I refer you to this article where it says that they did act differently, because it was a different type - not a "typical grand jury". And then we have McCulloch telling the jurors in his opening statement that; Obviously, it is going to be different from a lot of the other cases that you've heard, which obviously it was because he didn't ask for an indictment, he asked them to investigate every single piece of evidence that was available - which a typical grand jury does not do. I have provided sources that say McCulloch did not ask for an indictment, as he would normally do of a "typical grand jury", but rather he asked them to investigate every single piece of evidence, which obviously means - they were "operating differently than normal". You have provided no sourcing whatsoever that disputes this grand jury was investigating this case or that it is somehow wrong or misleading to describe it as an investigative grand jury. Isaidnoway (talk)  00:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the sources provided in the article mention a different type of grand jury. The closest we have is Casselman discussing the "investigative nature" of the grand jury, but makes no mention of the grand jury being of a different type. I based my reasoning on current Missouri statute pointing to the fact that the prosecutor or grand jury may subpoena for evidence and witnesses at will, there is no such thing as a different type of grand jury and all grand juries in MO are intended to be a mechanism of indictment. Ergo, this is a fringe theory that is not supported by sources. It's also worth mentioning that your logic is circular - it assumes that because the grand jury was subject to a different process, it must be of a different type, an assumption that you haven't proven to be true. --RAN1 (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm simply saying that the sources support describing this grand jury as an investigative grand jury, based on the fact that they did indeed investigate this case, which was obviously different than the previous cases they handled. Isaidnoway (talk)  03:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't supported by any of those sources. Investigative grand juries are a separate process encountered in states other than MO, and representing the grand jury in MO as an investigative grand jury is an editorial spin that should be avoided. --RAN1 (talk) 07:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, judging by your comments in this thread and previous threads, I have reached the conclusion that you must not be from the USA. Otherwise, you would be familiar with the history and the origin of the grand jury process and the powers and functions of the investigative grand jury that are deeply rooted in the history of this country and has been for over 200 years. I really don't know what else to say, it's been proven that this terminology is not made up, nor is it original research, nor is it a fringe view. Multiple sources support this terminology and it is synonymous with a "grand jury investigation" as well. And furthermore, Missouri does have this separate process, as outlined in the Missouri Constitution, but the Ferguson grand jury was not one of these, as it was convened in May as a regular grand jury and they just simply transitioned to an investigative grand jury in August when the Wilson case was given to them. Isaidnoway (talk)  23:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Missouri does have this separate process, as outlined in the Missouri Constitution, but the Ferguson grand jury was not one of these, as it was convened in May as a regular grand jury and they just simply transitioned to an investigative grand jury in August when the Wilson case was given to them. A great example of original research. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thought so too. Apparently you still have not read or comprehend the policy on original research which explicitly and specifically states - (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.) And guess what, this talk page is exactly where this OR is located. But thanks anyway for the compliment. Isaidnoway (talk)  00:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I am a United States citizen, though your ad hominem would be just as relevant if I hadn't been. I'm also aware of the difference between federal and state law: grand juries are guaranteed by the federal constitution but implemented on the state level. Speaking of state level, I decided to look up the Missouri Constitution to see if what you said was relevant. The Missouri Constitution has a section on its grand juries, but said section says that grand juries have the ability to investigate and return indictments on crimes of all grades and character. This has nothing to do with the idea that grand juries in MO have a separate process for investigating, but instead suggests that both responsibilities to investigate and indict are held against it. If you have any real evidence you'd like to link to support your as-of-now completely-unsupported fringe theory, I don't think anybody would mind. --RAN1 (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not every state gives its grand jury both functions; Indicting and Investigating, Missouri does give the grand jury both functions - specifically for investigating non-criminal activity.
 * Grand juries may be of two types: an indicting grand jury...or an investigative grand jury.
 * Contemporary grand juries are generally classified as being either “investigative” or “indicting.”
 * Grand juries...function largely as the "investigative" and "indicting" arms of prosecutorial officials. (Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, Volume 2, ISBN 0028648803, 9780028648804)
 * See also: Debates of the Missouri Constitutional Convention, April 18, 19, 1944, at pp. 1143-1157; Specific discussions pertaining to the investigative function of the grand jury.
 * Missouri statute authorizing an investigative grand jury to be convened to examine lists of tangible personal property for correctness
 * Missouri statute authorizing an investigative grand jury to be convened to examine public buildings and report on their conditions Isaidnoway (talk)  15:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The common thread in all of those is that they describe national grand jury usage without specifics for felony crimes (i.e. 1-3) or they describe grand juries as used for non-felony non-crimes (5-6). In either case those aren't relevant to standard felony process in Missouri, and Cassel's theory is still a fringe theory. --RAN1 (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was asked to provide sourcing to substantiate the claim that Missouri does have a separate grand jury process for "investigative grand juries", I did. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was asked to provide sourcing to substantiate the claim that Missouri does have a separate grand jury process for "investigative grand juries" related to this case. --RAN1 (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that this was one of those "separate" cases, it's just being used in this instance to describe the function that this grand jury performed - an investigation - hence the "grand jury that investigated this case" can and is described in reliable sources as an "investigative grand jury". Isaidnoway (talk)  18:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Some states have grand juries that don't have the power to indict but do have the power to investigate. Those might properly be termed "investigative grand juries."  Some states also allow grand juries to investigate independent of prosecutors, and those special grand juries might also be termed "investigative grand juries." But a Missouri grand jury has the power to indict in addition to just investigating things and is always under the control of prosecutors, so calling it an "investigative grand jury" is something of a misnomer that brings even more confusion to an already confusing topic. Here's some good reading on grand juries. Dyrnych (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oi... this is a reoccurring issue? Hate to tell you all, but the difference between a regular grand jury and an investigative grand jury is that the investigative grand jury is the decision maker on the charge. It is not a separate type of grand jury, it is a separate procedure. This is pretty basic stuff. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Before anyone starts hollering that Chris didn't provide any sources for his comment, I will gladly oblige.
 * “It was a very atypical proceeding,” acknowledged Peter Joy, a Washington University law professor. “But when you have an investigative grand jury they typically do consume a lot more evidence.”
 * "The difference between a regular grand jury and an investigative grand jury is that the investigative grand jury is the decision maker on the charge." Isaidnoway (talk)  05:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a different procedure that doesn't exist in MO. Grand juries already have this power as I noted is mentioned in MO statute. What you're describing is a phenomenon that cannot occur in this context. --RAN1 (talk) 07:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - Is Ran1 really arguing personal reasoning against a law professor, a prosecutor, and half a dozen other legal professionals? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think two Law Professors from Missouri and the Jackson County, Missouri Prosecutor are more than qualified to give an opinion on how grand juries operate in Missouri. And this "different procedure" being bandied about in this thread, does exist in Missouri, as the power of grand juries to investigate is entrenched in the Missouri Constitution. Isaidnoway (talk)  19:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red herring. No one is arguing that the grand jury did not have the power to investigate. What is being argued is the attempt to make a distinction that does not exist. This was not an "investigative grand jury" more than any other grand jury in MO. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there are multiple sources (hundreds, if not thousands) that say there was a distinction, so I think I'll go with the sourcing rather than your mis-guided opinion. Isaidnoway (talk)  00:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of sources that describe the grand jury investigation, but what we are discussing is the fallacious argument that this grand jury was different than any other grand jury in MO, and had some kind of special status as an "investigative grand jury". It was not. What was different was the approach taken by the prosecutor's office. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, you inserted a table into this article a while ago that specifically highlighted how "this grand jury was different than any other grand jury in MO", and now you say it is a fallacious argument. What made this grand jury distinct from other grand juries in MO is in fact - "the approach taken by the prosecutor's office", which resulted in them investigating every piece of evidence in this case. I presume you know that investigative is synonymous with investigation? Using the term investigative in front of "grand jury" does not imply some special status, it implies that the function of the grand jury in this case was to investigate it. Isaidnoway (talk)  04:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like this is converging to a similar conclusion that is currently at the end of the Talk section Wikipedia voice lack of attribution. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Chronology restored
After some consulting it became apparent Cwobeel's intention was not to have an actual chronology in the article, but more the evolution of the story and how it played out. This is the essential function of the Ferguson unrest article, but it is also the story of the story. By flipping the breakdown on its head the details can be presented without resulting in confusion over the timeline or the subject matter. This results in a timeline which is almost entirely duplicated by the 2014 Ferguson unrest page, but that is for another time. Toobin's comments are now reflective while not inflective. A reminder to all, that Either-Or Reasoning, does not exist on complex issues. The snow job-type argument that there was "overwhelming criticism" was instead "discussion" in the media on the topic. The vast majority of reliable sources said the result was expected or justified given the evidence, but the process did not inspire confidence despite being typical and very routine in similar situations. Now hopefully, the structure better reflects the information and the public reaction by time. I did not intend to go full Tomlinson on this and I hope everyone else will agree that this article can be better than that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not 100% sure this is a good structure, but most concerning to me is that the response to the grand jury process and decision is now presented within a false balance. I am still on break and will not be able to address this yet, but will do when I get back to actively edit. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide some evidence because the consensus is that it would never have survived at trial and over 20 reliable sources from the most senior and knowledgeable experts have come to that conclusion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would hope that you would have those 20 reliable sources on retainer, because I don't see that happening here   . I don't see how consensus exists under a well-defined and well-known controversy. --RAN1 (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering your response and staunch opposition to Cassell's commentary, you won't recognize it as valid no matter what is presented. You labeled a superior source, who has written extensively on the subject, as WP:FRINGE and made claims of WP:BLP violations while repeatedly attacking Cassell's validity. There is no reason to discuss this any further given the circumstances. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Full protection
I have fully protected the article for two weeks due to the continued edit warring among a number of editors. Before anything is added to the article it will need to first be proposed here, if uncontroversial (in the opinion of reviewing admin) may be added to the article straight away if not consensus will be needed first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia voice - lack of attribution
This material is rendered in Wikipedia's voice and without attribution. That is a violation of NPOV.

Ref # 139 is Cassel's piece published on the Volokh Conspiracy blog at the WaPo (Cassell, Paul (November 25, 2014). "The Michael Brown grand jury process was fair". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 17, 2014.)

In addition, the note added there based on this source omits significant information from the source.

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NPOV and WP:ASSERT. Statements of fact should not be marked as if they are opinions. Unless you are disputing that the grand jury process was normal and public, it is correct. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Normal" is an opinion, and opinions need attribution. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The burden is with you to prove that there is a serious and reliable source to disagree with the uncontested "opinion" 2 law professors, 2 Missouri prosecutors, and a U.S. District Court judge and nearly 50 different sources, and Missouri State Law which editors like Ran1 have cited are in dispute about this very fact. It is a fact that grand juries operate in secret. It is a fact grand jury proceedings are not normally released to the public. The burden is on your Cwobeel. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If there are other sources for these claims of fact, why don't you find a better one than the Cassel piece? We can agree that it's an opinion source and that its opinion is sympathetic to McCulloch, right?  So why would we send a reader who's interested in seeing our source for statements about general grand jury procedure to a such a source (or, for that matter, an opinion source that is critical of McCulloch)? Dyrnych (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A law professor who teaches in the specific field and a U.S. District Court judge? It is not an opinion that grand jury proceedings are normally secret - the burden is on you to prove otherwise. And the law - which Ran1 cited is pretty clear of this matter. Do not assert facts as opinions - that is a violation of WP:NPOV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again you seem not to have read what I actually said. If you're going to respond to me, please do so and answer the questions I posed. Dyrnych (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

- I answered your question,, the source is directly related to the topic, covers the exact aspects and is by an authority who has written extensively on this case. Please provide this "better source" you refer to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually in this instance the burden is on you to prove it is a reliable opinion. As I mentioned above, neither Missouri statute nor the Missouri constitution provide a legal basis for "investigate-only" grand juries; all MO grand juries have the ability to indict on all crimes, including misdemeanors. In that case, the source you have provided is actually propagating a fringe theory, based on the opinion of a judge who only has experience in federal, D.C. and Utah jurisdictions (see Paul G. Cassell). As such, you're going to need a much more reliable source to include this in the article. Per BLPREMOVE, I'm removing this tidbit as poorly-sourced. --RAN1 (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the item that RAN1 removed.
 * "Cassel asserted that, typically, prosecutors come before a grand jury having already screened for probable cause and present a recommended charge, but that in this case the grand jury process deviated from normal course by acting in an investigative role, with no assurance that any criminal conduct was present.
 * I don't see the problem. This looks like a reasonable explanation of what happened and not a fringe theory, it has an in-text attribution as requested by the OP, its source is an article in the Washington Post, and it's not a BLP issue.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Here's an excerpt from another source, supplied in a previous message of Cwobeel's, that also supports the comment about the "investigative" aspect of the grand jury.
 * "In this case, however, the prosecutor allowed the grand jury to examine the evidence 'in more of an investigative capacity,' McGraugh said."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the source I removed is referencing the opinion of Ben Caselman published in the Huffington Post, which is a case-by-case source. I think we should examine that source carefully, since I'm contesting the opinion's reliability. Caselman doesn't appear to be properly linked in WashPost, so at any rate I'm still removing this as poorly sourced. --RAN1 (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , The item is not using Caselman's opinion. It is using Cassel's characterization of the grand jury that is in section 6 of the Washington Post article . --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing, afaik, that this grand jury was "specially" convened to hear this case, we know it wasn't. What we are saying is that when the prosecution did not ask for a specific indictment, this grand jury took on an "investigative" role, and the sources reflect that by describing the jury as an "investigative grand jury". I don't understand how a grand jury investigation into this case is a fringe theory. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The argument is that grand juries investigate crimes, not investigate incidents which involve legal jeopardy. That makes Cassell's opinion a fringe theory. --RAN1 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So I take it that any other legal opinion of this nature that supports Cassell's opinion is a fringe theory as well?
 * Typically, prosecutors do recommend a specific charge and have already issued a criminal complaint based on it when they go to a grand jury. In Wilson’s case, prosecutors presented five potential charges and told jurors to investigate whether there was probable cause based on the evidence.
 * How a grand jury normally proceeds is that the state presents a case for probable cause –that they will go forward after telling the (grand) jury, ‘We think this is the crime that was committed, here is the evidence that supports the charge we're bringing,’ and (they) vote yes or no," McGraugh said. In this case, however, the prosecutor allowed the grand jury to examine the evidence "in more of an investigative capacity," McGraugh said. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it means that the opinions should be checked for reliability. Btw, Cassell was also a news blog, so we should really be examining this carefully before reinserting it, as it's likely a BLP violation. --RAN1 (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not poorly sourced or unsourced or contentious, I see no BLP issue. Cassell's news blog is in the WaPo, if you want to try and get consensus to exclude the WaPo as a RS, feel free or take it to the RSN. And the reliability of those opinions are supported by multiple sources that say McCulloch did not ask for an indictment from the grand jury, he asked for an investigation from the grand jury. Therefore, it is accurate and reliably sourced to describe the function of the grand jury in this case an an investigative role and also to describe the jury itself as an investigative grand jury - which is an accurate description of what they were tasked to do by McCulloch. Isaidnoway (talk)  21:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is poorly sourced. The Volokh Conspiracy is self-described as a group blog outside of WaPo's editorial control, which makes it a self-published source. Therefore, it must be considered separately from WaPo. Per BLP, the burden of evidence is on you to prove the Volokh Conspiracy is a reliable source. I brought it up on BLPN, feel free to discuss it there. --RAN1 (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Volokh Conspiracy is republished without editorial by WaPo, but it has its own editorial control and written exclusively by legal experts. I've explained this to you three times in two different places before you cranked out this SPS claim again. Stop misrepresenting others and stop misrepresenting sources and do not break 5RR and then claim something which is demonstrably false. It is a waste of our time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, if I remember correctly, we found consensus to remove legal expert opinions in a previous RfC, something which you guys specifically voted to not include because it introduced POV pushing. This is pushing the POV that the grand jury was supposed to investigate in the absence of a possible felony. So how is this any different? --RAN1 (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I missed it, but what is the "contentious material about a living person" that is being challenged? Isaidnoway (talk)  22:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The contentious material is the idea that McCulloch brought in the grand jury to investigate without the premise of a felony, which may be considered libel. If you need me to clarify anything else, feel free to ask. --RAN1 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no BLP violation. I think the excerpt from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch explains well the situation re "investigate". Here it is again.
 * "In Wilson’s case, prosecutors presented five potential charges and told jurors to investigate whether there was probable cause based on the evidence."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see the problem now, you have misinterpreted Cassell's opinion:
 * Typically, prosecutors come before a grand jury having already screened for probable cause and present a recommended charge. In this case the grand jury process deviated from normal course by acting in an investigative role, with no assurance that any criminal conduct was present.
 * What he is implying is that this grand jury didn't receive any "assurance" from McCulloch that probable cause existed, which is obviously backed up by the first sentence in which he is comparing the differences between what they typically do, and comments, prosecutors have usually already screened for probable cause. And Cassell's very next sentence that follows this makes it clear: Obviously an investigation into a possible crime is never a sure thing — particularly in the area of police shootings. Isaidnoway (talk)  23:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I understand what it's saying now. The only problem with this opinion now is the fact that it implies federal grand juries do not investigate, which they can and they can ask questions. Including it in general also seems suspect since it's pushing a POV. --RAN1 (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Facepalm. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Care to clarify? --RAN1 (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The case of federal grand juries regarding "investigative" hasn't been mentioned in any of the three sources nor in the item you deleted from the article, and the three sources were specifically discussing the Wilson grand jury, so it's not clear why you brought that up. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was asking ChrisGualtieri. --RAN1 (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And I was making this point to you. Would you care to respond? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For reference, here again is the item that you deleted.
 * "Cassel asserted that, typically, prosecutors come before a grand jury having already screened for probable cause and present a recommended charge, but that in this case the grand jury process deviated from normal course by acting in an investigative role, with no assurance that any criminal conduct was present.[1]"
 * So what is the remaining problem you see here regarding federal grand juries? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Atypical jury
I want to add a good section on why the grand jury process was different, but this needs to be non-judgmental per NPOV. Each draft I make comes out very negatively and poorly worded. In reviewing the situation, the unusual length stemmed from the unusual decision to review all the evidence. This includes exonerating evidence which is not typically presented. The original intention of McCulloch was to submit all the evidence and present charges - without advocating for a particular charge, which was unusual. After that, the matter of Wilson testifying is unusual. The choice to record, document and release the documents and evidence was also unusual. Side issues of whether or not McCulloch should have recused himself should be handled near the top of the article under a section dealing with the key persons. Issues relating to blunders and such should be outside the overview of the grand jury details. Anyone want to draft a section up? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you post a draft under your userspace, maybe something to start this off? It'd be nice to know what you've come up with to try to see how we can improve it. --RAN1 (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox for now. Several key pieces from the other text sections are going to be moved up and around. So think of this as "grand jury and grand jury response", but not aftermath or anything else. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I did a better job summarizing the criticism, but the jury section is still weak. Public reactions to the grand jury is definitely moving in the right direction, but is incoherent as the analysis of the forensic issues should be placed in the proper section. The draft is missing Witness 40 issues, but that is something not handled in the article either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I liked the way you named the notable legal commenters along with their comments on McCullough's management of the case before the grand jury. That allows the reader to decide how to weight the comments, instead of making that decision ourselves as editors.  It ought to be cited as an example of how to report on contentious subjects in wikipedia. loupgarous (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that means a lot to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

McCulloch interview
Cwobeel added this content consisting of: {{talkquote|In an interview on December 19, his first after the announcement of no bill, McCulloch firmly defended his handling of the grand jury – such as presenting all evidence including witness testimony that was discredited, instead of a narrow thesis of the case – and said that "[m]y job is not to get an indictment, my job is to seek the truth, and seek justice and do what is right and what’s appropriate in there, and that’s what we did in this case and all other cases."] Can anyone honestly say this is a neutral presentation of a half-hour long discussion? There is some uncredited editorializing from the source with "such as presenting all evidence including witness testimony that was discredited, instead of a narrow thesis of the case" The source is very poor for a NYT source has typos like "Mr. McCullough". McCulloch says he could have presented it in such a skewed fashion to get a murder charge based on Johnson alone. McCulloch also said that Brown's father cannot be charged with inciting a riot - the charge does not exist in the state - and that nobody burned anything down. (15:30) McCulloch acknowledges Witness 40 (not explicitly), but wanted the jury to hear everything by witnesses and assess the credibility of the witnesses. More interestingly is that McCulloch points to the Justice Dept as the source of the leaks. The NYT source is really poor and let's just use a transcript or directly for citing McCulloch's words. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * {{tq|Can anyone honestly say this is a neutral presentation of a half-hour long discussion}}. It may, or may not be a neutral presentation of the subject, but our role is not to pass judgement on the neutrality of sources such as The New Your Times (what may be neutral to you may be not neutral to me and vice-versa). That is not what NPOV or BLP tells us. You will have a really hard time convincing anyone that the New York Times is a "poor" source. Again, our role is not to report "facts", but to present significat viewpoints about a subject, in particular on controversial subjects on which there is no binary "true" or "false". -   Cwobeel   (talk)
 * I'm working on that but it will take me some time. My draft is based on putting the basic issue on how the grand jury was different and what the results were. Then saving the criticism for a section to it which goes through the problems since the quotes are not really an ideal situation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a good idea to segregate criticism to its own section. Also, please be careful with WP:OR. It is best to let the sources speak for themselves and avoid synthesizing to an extreme. It is a narrow path, you know. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It would not be helpful to have the criticism of process in the grand jury section. Here is the section I am working on

{{talkquote| The grand jury proceedings were atypical because there was a departure from normal proceedings on many aspects. From the beginning of the process, McCulloch announced that the grand jury would hear all the evidence, that proceedings would be transcribed and the materials would be made public if there was no indictment. The American grand jury process operates in secret to collect evidence and to test the memory of witnesses against that evidence; this is done to prevent witnesses from altering their testimony to match statements made by previous witnesses. These secret proceedings are not normally made public in cases of no indictment, but in this case it was to provide transparency to the process. }} {{talkquote| The grand jury process deviated from normal course by investigating with no assurance that any criminal conduct was present. Typically, prosecutors come before a grand jury having already screened for probable cause and present a recommended charge. In this case, the prosecution presented the full range of charges with none being specifically endorsed. These deviations also included the length of time for which the grand jury investigation. It would take the grand jury 25 days over the span of three months to hear more than 5,000 pages of testimony from 60 witnesses and then deliberate on whether or not to indict Wilson. }} {{talkquote| The members of the grand jury were impaneled in May 2014, prior to the shooting, and consisted of three blacks (one man and two women) and nine whites (six men and three women), which roughly corresponded to the "racial makeup" of {{nowrap|St. Louis}} County. The racial make up of {{nowrap|St. Louis}} County is 70% white and the {{nowrap|St. Louis}} suburb of Ferguson was about 66% black. On {{nowrap|August 20}}, the grand jury started hearing evidence in the shooting of Brown in order to decide whether a crime was committed and if there is probable cause to believe Wilson committed it. The grand jury was instructed that they could not return an indictment unless they found probable cause that Wilson did not act in self defense and did not act lawfully in the use of deadly force by law enforcement agents. Throughout the process the grand jury was not sequestered during the proceedings. }} {{talkquote| On the night of {{nowrap|November 24}}, Prosecutor McCulloch reported in a 20-minute press conference that the grand jury reached a decision in the case and elected not to indict Wilson. McCulloch released a large number of documents, including testimony from the proceedings, selected photographs, investigative reports, video and audio recordings, and interview transcripts considered as evidence, the following day. McCulloch's office acknowledged that it kept some records secret at the request of the FBI, due to the ongoing civil rights investigation. Only 24 of the 64 witness testimonies were made public. More than half of the witness interviews that were released were conducted by FBI agents or federal prosecutors. Interviews conducted by county officials were not released. Seven video clips of Dorian Johnson's media interviews, along with a transcript of his testimony to the grand jury, were released. Video of the two-hour interview by FBI and county police were withheld. }} I think it is stronger than our current version in the article and am working on dealing with the portrayal of the issues raised by sources. The matter of McCulloch, who did not actually take part in the actual jury case takes a lot of flak because it was his office and he guided the actions. This becomes a delicate issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good attempt, but is lacking many aspects that were challenged by legal analysts. The summary misses several crucial points, and it seems to be quite apologetic, almost clearing the prosecution from all the criticism leveled at them for their handling of the case. Not a go from my perspective. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, handling the criticism is the next section which I spent a few hours going over. There is absolutely no reason to go through all the criticism and counterpoints and other facts. I did rewrite the beginning to include the fact that McCulloch did not take part in any of the proceedings. It is appropriate to discern that the grand jury result and proceedings were different and to state why - it is not "apologetic". Sources like Reyes has no legal foundation or competency to rest mere opinion on - the unsupported allegations of conspiracy and manipulation are unsupported. We do not rewrite moon landing page to include "counterpoints" of how they were faked and interleave them with those which say they are true. The presence of controversy does not justify mere inclusion or a deference of fact to controversy. Remember WP:OTTO - sources do not always fact check can sometimes embellish or just plain lie about a non-existent dog and its life. Do not believe everything that is written. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We have hashed this over several threats already, and the emerging consensus is that you can't dismiss sources because you believe the sources are "wrong". So, if you want your effort not to be wasted, then make sure that your summary represents fairly and without bias all significant viewpoints, per NPOV. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Per policy - this source is an opinion piece which should not be used. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to spin your personal views on the subject. Tennessee v. Garner was a red herring and it still is. The August 15 "robbery conspiracy" is false. We had two sections and a RFC to confirm that the large wall of text about opinions should be summarized. And that is what I am doing. In the course of reviewing these so-called legal experts, many fail WP:LAWSOURCES and are just talking heads with base entire arguments on nonsense. They are not reliable so they are replaced or removed in accordance with policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Per policy, opinion pieces can be included if attributed. What you refer as "so called legal expert" are indeed legal experts,. You are not one, and therefore unqualified to asses their competence. And even if you were a legal expert, then your opinion could only be included if reported in an RS. Removing material that is well sourced and which contains opinions of experts is vandalism, pure and simple. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the RFC may conclude with a need to summarize, but that does not mean that you can dismiss the sources and summarize just what you want included. No way that that will happen, so make a better effort to summarize. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent}} This source does not meet the requirements. Jeff Roorda's supporting comments are weak. And the Eric Holder supposedly not liking his name referenced in the announcement is not even relevant. Everything else is summarized properly - its just that the kind of source bickering is not necessary in the grand jury. And I decided to not play telephone tag with NYT opinion pieces and cut out the middleman. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have missed many of the opinions, which are relevant. If you are unwilling to properly group and summarize the criticism, maybe let others take a stab at it. But this version is no go. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take it to mediation if need be - but complaining that something is done because the article is not at GA/FA/A-class is not a reason to include content which is unacceptable at GA/FA/A-Class. There was a consensus to reduce the number of opinions from 16 down to something more manageable. I made a draft for two sections and I am not going to argue with you over this anymore. Wikipedia is not a place to argue opinions of a tangential nature and I think the 6 pages of content on "reactions" is completely WP:Undue. I will collapse this off if you continue with WP:IDHT and more accusations of a personal bias. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Just wait a few days as many people are enjoying the holiday season, as mediation will require the agreement of all active editors. Happy holidays. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, it's January 2nd, 2015, so I'm weighing in. Others ought to feel free.  We're under no obligation to reproduce a noticeably flawed press narrative.  Sensationalism is what the press does.  NPOV encyclopedic articles are what we do. If that changes and we're slaved to the same low standards of objectivity of the national press, I can't see a lot of editors staying with wikipedia.  That applies with special emphasis to tangential articles such as the press account of a song sung at a retired LAPD cop's party... it wasn't sung in Missouri, it didn't affect the grand jury's deliberations, it was simply one more way the LA Times could sell papers and ads on their Web site.  We can't assume the press' good faith in every article they run, because their imperatives are different from ours.  Their ethics are "If it bleeds, it leads," not "Is it NPOV?"  Their business model forbids them to publish NPOV articles, so if we uncritically give equal weight to everything the local and national press publish, we're going to be packing this article with undue weight given presumptions such as "The police hate black people and kill them when they can."  The press's job is to sell ad space with messages like that.  It doesn't have to be our job, and it shouldn't be our job. loupgarous (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle on what you are saying, in particular on obvious sensationalistic coverage. On the other hand, we ought to be very careful as editors in passing judgement on what reliable sources say, their motivations, or their bias. Wikipedia is not in the business of "selling newspapers" but it is also not in the business of deciding for our readers what to present to them based on our own opinions. Per NPOV, we report the significant opinions as published in reliable sources. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  16:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And I agree that care is needed that we don't become ideological censors of reliable sources. I have stated in prior posts here that we ought to, within practical limits, give all sides of a controversy voiced by notable sources - with the names of the people who comment, so that our readers can decide what weight to give them. But what about "Bad, Bad, Michael Brown"?  Are we going to let something sung by the guests at a retired cop's party weigh in a significant manner on this article, just because the LA Times and some national press outlets decide it matters to their readers?  In any other context, such as "Impact on Popular Culture," this song wouldn't make the cut for the very good reason that it isn't a published song. So why does it deserve to be anywhere else in the article? loupgarous (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Cassell source
Ran1 took the Cassell source over to BLPN (see here) for violations of Fringe and BLP, but Ran1 is arguing something which is not opinion and is not about a person. I do not know why Cwobeel reinserted the issue which was removed and replace a very flawed version in this edit. Ran1 even modified the usage to create the issue which now remains in the article. Some how the better secondary source was removed and now there is some issue that Volokh is a self-published source and not a WP:NEWSBLOG being hotly contested by editors who are responding to something which is not an issue. Cassell was not being used for a BLP issue and now flaws are in the article which editors at BLPN think exist - can we remove Cassell's source and replace it with the other source or have the tangential discussion started by Ran1 resolved? People complained when I wanted to and then did remove Huffington Post from being cited - but this misguided and messed up issue originating with Ran1's confusion is so trivial that it is sound and fury over Ran1's error. Can't we just fix it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of focusing on blaming other editors, let's use a better source for the claim. We've established that better (read: non-opinion) sources exist for describing the grand jury, so let's pick one of those and use it. Dyrnych (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH
This seems to be under WP:SYNTH The "The Grand Jury Wrangled With Confusing Instructions" source does not even mention Koster. The other source, "Lawrence O’Donnell: Missouri atty. general admits Ferguson grand jury was misled" is published by the Rawstory and gets its information from the Daily Kos. The grand jury was given the law as it exists - it was not "based on state law" and the Garner ruling is a civil matter so this was no misleading. O'Donnell's program is factually inaccurate and the Daily Kos and Raw story are unreliable sources - let's not filter poor sources to state, incorrectly, what the Attorney General actually stated. This should be corrected or removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember all those things I've said about independent legal analysis by editors? The above is an example: "The grand jury was given the law as it exists - it was not 'based on state law' and the Garner ruling is a civil matter so this was no misleading." The prosecutors actually stated that the grand jury should not rely on the previously-presented Missouri statute because of intervening case law, per the first source.  It's certainly relevant that Koster advocated for the updating of Missouri state law to comply with Tennessee v. Garner and the Raw Story piece is an acceptable but not great source for the mere quote of Koster.  If there's a better source for that quote, we should use that instead, and in any event it should be rephrased. Dyrnych (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Better source: Missouri Attorney General Wants Tougher Deadly Force Law -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)