Archive for the 'Anger' category

Look Somewhere Else for Romance

Feb 03 2016 Published by under Anger, Tribe of Science


Once again, my friends, a professor of science has been found to be harassing women underlings.

Actually it was a bit more:

Lieb allegedly made unwelcome sexual advances to several female graduate students on an off-campus retreat in Galena, Ill., and engaged in sexual activity with a student who was “incapacitated due to alcohol and therefore could not consent,” according to documents acquired by the New York Times.

Yeah, that last part there pretty much makes Jason Lieb a rapist.

Then it turns out that the guy had left Princeton rather abruptly:

Yoav Gilad, a molecular biologist at Chicago who was on the committee that advocated hiring Dr. Lieb, said he and his fellow faculty members knew that in February 2014 Dr. Lieb had abruptly resigned from Princeton University, just seven months after having been recruited from the University of North Carolina to run a high-profile genomics institute.

then it gets very foggy:

molecular biologists on the University of Chicago faculty and at other academic institutions received emails from an anonymous address stating that Dr. Lieb had faced allegations of sexual harassment or misconduct at previous jobs at Princeton and the University of North Carolina.


But Dr. Gilad said that when it was contacted, Princeton said there had been no sexual harassment investigation of Dr. Lieb while he was there. He said efforts to find out more about what prompted Dr. Lieb’s departure proved fruitless. A Princeton spokeswoman said the university does not comment on personnel matters.

hmmm. smells a little bit, doesn't it? But no PROOF. Because, no doubt, of the usual. Murky circumstances. Accusations that can't be proved easily. Wagon circling from the institution and lingering doubt that the accuser is telling the truth. We've seen it a million times.

Separately, Dr. Gilad acknowledged, during the interviews of Dr. Lieb, he admitted that he had had a monthslong affair with a graduate student in his laboratory at the University of North Carolina.

Ok, wait, whoa full stop. The dude had an affair with a graduate student IN HIS LAB!

Done. Right there. The vast majority of Universities that have policies at least say you can't have an affair with a student you have a direct supervisory role over.

Hiring committees are not courts of law and applicants do not have a right to be hired. This committee at U of C should have taken a pass as soon as they learned Lieb was screwing his graduate student.

There are a number of problems that we academics need to confront about this.

First, the guy raped an incapacitated grad student at a dept retreat. This has to put some courage into departments to lay down some rules during their retreats. Like maybe, no faculty partying with grad students after official hours, when the other faculty aren't around. Open the retreat with a discussion of harassment, respect and professional behavior like they do at GRCs now. That sort of thing.

Second, what in the hell do we do about these unproven cases in which the guy (it's almost always a man) who keeps jumping institutions leaves a smell of harassment and bad behavior behind him that hasn't been proven or documented?

It's weird, right?

If you take a rec letter from a trusted colleague about a prospective student or postdoc that has the slightest hint of a problem, professional work wise, you take an automatic pass. You move on to the next candidate. Nobody talks about lawyers and proof and how you "have" to hire this particular postdoc or they will sue you for defamation. Yet when it comes to a faculty hire, the stench of misconduct is treated differently. "well, it hasn't been proven! there's no paper trail! Sure he left in a hurry and the old institution ain't talking but its a coincidence! and we can't listen to these rumors from eight of his previous trainees who all tell the same tale, hearsay! we'll be sued for defamation if we choose not to hire him!".

Something is very wrong here.

We're perfectly okay not hiring a candidate because we suspect they won't like our town and will be soon looking to leave. Ok with violating HR rules to sniff around about a two-body problem and refuse to offer a faculty job to such a problem candidate. Underrepresented minorities? Don't even get me started. Women of childbearing age or with a young child? yeah. Our hiring committees do all kinds of inferring and gossiping and not-offering on the basis of suspected factors. Thinly evidenced. Not proven. Actually illegal reasons in some cases.

But when someone is rumoured to be a harasser of women? Geez, we have to bend over backwards to extend him his alleged right to the job.

Something is very wrong here.

People of science? Please. Just. Look. Somewhere. Else. Would. You? Please? Find your romantic entanglements outside of the workplace. Really. It cannot possibly be this difficult.

88 responses so far

The #StayMadAbby case proves the point about perceptions of fairness

Dec 10 2015 Published by under Academics, Anger, Diversity in Science

The other day I was discussing the notion of what is "fair" in majority USian thinking.

In the US, it is considered fair if the very top echelon of the disadvantaged population succeeds at the level of the bottom slice of the advantaged distribution.

And if any individual of the top echelon of the disadvantaged population should happen to achieve up past the middle of the advantaged distribution? Well clearly that is unfair and evidence of reverse discrimination!

I was not familiar with the details of the Abigail Fisher (#StayMadAbby) case under consideration by SCOTUS (see Scalia) this week when I wrote that. I have learned a few things.

The University of Texas has a policy of accepting the top 10% of in-state high school graduates. This accounted for 92% of the slots when Ms. Fisher was applying for admission. She was not in the top 10% of her class.

Her qualifications were mediocre at best: A GPA of 3.59 and SAT scores of 1180/1600.

So she was less than amazingly qualified and was fighting for one of the 8% of the remaining admission slots for non-top-10% applicants.

There is more though, which is a real kicker. Again, from the Salon article. There were:

168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher’s who were also denied entry into the university that year.

So if she had been admitted, they would have all had a case that she was stealing their slot.

It gets better*.

It’s true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white.

Emphasis added.

Ms. Fisher is suing on the basis of those five black or Latino students who were admitted. They had worse grades, you see, so she deserved to get in. And was discriminated against solely on the fact that she wasn't black or Latina. Except 42 white students also were admitted with worse grades. So if anyone took her slot it is 42:5 THAT IT WAS A WHITE STUDENT.

And of course had she been offered admission, there were 168 individuals with the same claim against her that she is making now.

Reminder. This is not just one woman's disappointed whinging and viral YouTube video.

This case has wended its way all the way up to the highest court in the land and is being considered by our SCOTUS Justices.

She is the best possible plaintiff. Because the details of this case underscore how true it is that "fairness" in this country is that which only just barely allows the disadvantaged to draw (almost) even with the very lowest attaining members of the advantaged populations.

100 responses so far

A window on what is fair

Dec 08 2015 Published by under Anger

Apparently the SCOTUS is going to revisit an affirmative action case involving University admissions. I caught a small part of a NPR show on this, tuning in just in time to catch one of the opinion makers providing his analysis (around 37 min into the episode). It went something like this.

First, he noted in tones most disapproving, that "most of the students benefiting from affirmative action policies at elite universities are middle, or upper middle, class".

This is, of course, one of the great strategies of the anti-diversity crowd, not least of which because they managed to get the pusillanimous support for it out of the squishier pro-diversity types. "Oh, yes, we must agree that affirmative action is about demonstrated acute disadvantage for each individual applicant to University", is about the size of it. To be honest, I don't know if this guy on the radio was anti-diversity or one of these folks who has been hornswaggled by this particular anti-diversity tactic. It doesn't really matter because the result on the audience is the same.

Back to the story. Affirmative action is only for the most disadvantaged of the disadvantaged. Therefore, you see, if the beneficiaries of affirmative action policies are "middle to upper middle class", well affirmative action is clearly broken.

As a bit of an aside, notice this neat little conflation? Middle class with upper-middle class? It's bad enough that the concept of "middle class" is so huge and poorly defined that trying to claim members of the middle deserve no assistance in overcoming barriers to college admission is ridiculous. Oh no. We must roll this in together, seamlessly, with the upper-middle class. Because we know for damn sure that once you are in upper-middle, you deserve no help whatsoever. You have it made, baby.

So then, within a breath this guy says "....of course the white students are even richer" as barely an aside. Credit where due, at least he mentioned it. But AYFK? For whatever he meant by "elite Universities", the white population was richer than "middle to upper-middle".

Apple meet Orange. No matter how advantaged the beneficiary of affirmative action may be relative to the general population, he or she was still disadvantaged relative to the people at those elite Universities who were from the privileged groups. This is dismissed, however, as if it is barely relevant.

But wait, it gets better. He then immediately pivoted to "I don't think anyone thinks that Obama's children deserve affirmative action help".


Last I checked, Obama's salary was $400,000 per year and he gets, AFAIK, free room, much of his board and has a nice transportation allowance. Right? Plus, we know perfectly well that he and/or Michelle will make bank in the future from book royalties, speaking fees and the like. (Maybe even his SCOTUS salary? ....I crack myself up)

The Obama children are not middle class. They are not upper-middle class. They are lower rich.

But you see how this all works. It's a nice little sleight of hand and misdirection. We've moved the conversation from middle class African-Americans, or other disadvantaged ethnicities, to....the children of the President of the United States.

Clearly if Sasha and Malia don't need help then the child of a high school educated but stably employed and homeowning resident of Ferguson MO doesn't need help either.

The anti-diversity voices want to further advance their agenda on the back of a very pernicious perception.

In the US, it is considered fair if the very top echelon of the disadvantaged population succeeds at the level of the bottom slice of the advantaged distribution.

And if any individual of the top echelon of the disadvantaged population should happen to achieve up past the middle of the advantaged distribution? Well clearly that is unfair and evidence of reverse discrimination!

Stop shaking your heads, scientist Readers. We have this same problem in every aspect of our business as well. From graduate school admissions to faculty new-hires. From grant award to tenure. Onward it goes. Ethnic minorities, sure, but also women and people who trained in the wrong University. There are the advantaged and there are the disadvantaged. Meaning, that for the apples to apples comparison we are talking about those who would all-else-equal succeed similarly. But because all else is not equal, some have an easier time than others. Some achieve higher with the same effort and others achieve the same with less effort. Either way, it is most assuredly not fair.

Any time there is under-representation, you will find that any efforts to make things fairer are crippled by this misunderstanding of distributions and individual accomplishment.

It is fair , you see, if the top 10% of the disadvantaged sneak up just parallel with the third quartile of the advantaged. Anything more is reverse discrimination and totally unfair to the advantaged among us.

19 responses so far


Oct 06 2015 Published by under Anger

South Carolinans are suffering from torrential rains.

I feel sorry for them.

Well, some of them, anyway.

You see, it took no time at all to be reminded that most of the SC Congressional delegation voted against Federal relief aid during Hurricane Sandy.

Of course they are mostly Republicans.

Which means the majority of SC voters are voting Republican.

And the very essence of Republicanism is to greedily suck from the public for ones own benefit whilst denying any public benefit to anyone else.

This is not a decent way to behave.

So yeah. Let's check those voting records before sending in FEMA relief, eh? Let's hold Republicans true to their self-sufficient, non-taker, gub'mint hating beliefs.

The decent people could use a little extra. Let's focus on them.

17 responses so far

Backstabber? Really?

Sep 04 2015 Published by under Anger, Careerism, Conduct of Science

iBAM is pissed off!

A couple years ago I was applying for personal fellowships ...I talked to a junior groupleader (JG)...we brainstormed about what I would write in my fellowship. I wrote the fellowship and asked JG for feedback because they had experience with said fellowship. I submitted the fellowship and it got rejected. Twice. ....JG told me they were doing one of the experiments that I had proposed in my fellowship. And recently I saw that they had published the results. .......
What is the worst academic backstabbing you have experienced?

Look, I grasp that there are many situations of intellectual theft in this wide world of science.

But for every actual intellectual theft, there are scores of people who are deluded about their own unique special flower contribution and refuse to understand that many, many people probably had the same thoughts they did. People in your field read the same literature. They are interested in what you are interested in when it comes to understanding biology or whatever. How can you be shocked that someone else conducts the same experiments that you plan to conduct?

I have on more than one occasion read a grant proposal chock-a-block full of ideas that I've already thought up. Some of these never escaped the inside my head. Some were expressed to lab members or colleagues during conversations. Some were expressed in grant proposals, either submitted or left on the editing room floor, so to speak. Some of the ideas were of current interest, and some I'd dreamed up years before.

Maybe I have a lot of ideas about what science should be done next. Maybe more than most of you, I don't know. But I rather suspect that most of you also have way more thoughts about cool experiments to run than you can possibly get around to completing. Is it unfair if someone else completes a few of them?

And yeah. There have been cases where I have been unable to get a grant proposal on a given topic funded and lo and behold someone else later gets "my" grant to do the work I thought up...OUTRAGE! There must be a CONSPIRACY, maaang!

um. no.

It sometimes smarts. A lot. And can seem really, really unfair.

Look, I don't know the particulars of iBAM's case, but it doesn't generalize well, in my view. She "brainstormed with" this person. This person told her that they were doing the experiments. Is there maybe a wee hint of a chance that this person thought that the "brainstorming" session meant there was some co-ownership of ideas? That in mentioning the fact that they were starting to work on it this person thought they were giving fair warning to iBAM to assert some sort of involvement iF she chose?

The dangers of going overboard into the belief that the mere mention of a research plan or experiment to someone else means that they have to avoid working on that topic should be obvious. In this case, for example, iBAM didn't get the fellowship and eventually exited academic science. So perhaps those experiments would not have been completed if this sounding board person didn't do them. Or maybe they wouldn't have been done so soon.

And that would, presumably, be bad for science. After all, if you thought it was a good experiment to do, you should feel a little bit of dismay if that experiment never gets completed, right?

76 responses so far

Can you imagine the police treating your 14 year old daughter like this?

Jun 08 2015 Published by under Anger, General Politics

If you can't, you should probably think about that.

(3:04 in case the time stamped link doesn't work for you)

For additional context


25 responses so far

Boys will be boys. (NSFW)

Mar 09 2015 Published by under Anger


5 responses so far

Thought of the Day

Mar 05 2015 Published by under Anger, NIH Careerism, Tribe of Science

This is about the cognitive dissonance involved with realizing your part in a collective action.

It is about the result of a slowly evolving cultural hegemony.

It is about the tragedy of the commons and the emergent properties of systems that depend on the decisions of individual self-interested actors.

It is not all about Snidely Whiplash figures intentionally committing egregious, knowing acts of thievery and sabotage.

We need to be very clear about this or it devolves into useless fighting about personal responsibility for things that are not the direct result of highly specific individual acts.

20 responses so far

Gen X will never live up to its scientific potential

Mar 04 2015 Published by under Anger, NIH, NIH Budgets and Economics, NIH Careerism

The NIH Director, Francis Collins, was speaking to Congress this week and was widely quoted as lamenting the fate of junior scientists. As per this Sam Stein bit in HuffPo:

“This is the issue that wakes me up at night when I try to contemplate the future of where biomedical research can go in the United States,” Collins said. “They are finding themselves in a situation that is the least supportive of that vision in 50 years. They look ahead of them and see the more senior scientists struggling to keep their labs going and suffering rejection after rejection of grants that previously would have been supportive. And they wonder, 'Do we really want to sign up for that?' And many of them, regrettably, are making the decision to walk away.”

Obviously he is talking about trainees and perhaps the very newest of assistant professors, aka ESI qualified NIH applicants.

This goes along with a continued trend from the NIH. To wring their collective hands over those who are in their mid to late 30s and younger. To take some steps to help them out, most definitively with special paylines for the Early Stage Investigators who must be no more than 10 years away from the PhD award. To nod sagely about "eating our seed corn" as if they have the slightest clue what that might mean and whether it actually applies here (it doesn't).

It ignores another trend from the NIH, i.e. working busily to shore up the ability of the oldest guard of scientists to remain funded. You know about the Emeritus award they are considering. You have observed how well the very oldest slice of our PI applicant pool is treated at study section. And you have seen how NIGMS, the IC most serious about this workforce stability stuff*, put the oldsters at the front of the line with their MIRA initiative. Of course, the second in line (and in fact the only ones in line) for this little MIRA project are, you guessed it, ESIs.

We plan to issue a MIRA funding opportunity for early stage investigators as quickly as possible. We hope the first application due date will be sometime this summer.

As per usual, the demographic of the mid-career investigator is overlooked.

One of the comments on the NIGMS MIRA post is heart breaking and incredibly truthful. BioScientist wrote:

However, I have genuine concerns about the idea to roll it out first to either well-funded labs or early stage investigators. From what I can see, where it is most needed is in mid-career labs that do not have multiple R01’s, which in many cases are imploding in the present environment. These are the PI’s who are writing 10 grants to get 1 funded right now. The well-funded empires are doing just fine, and I have not found the PI’s of such labs to be the egalitarian types would would give up a dime so that someone else could keep a lab running.

For ESI’s, this could be an interesting experiment in how to launch successful careers. Many of us who endured the system of the last decade are discouraged and demoralized. Personally, I will never live up to my scientific potential after so many years of wasting time on failed proposals and preliminary results for projects that were never funded.

emphasis added. As if I have to do so.

Do you wonder why the current greybearded and silver haired people who remain powerful in science are so keen to cry over the poor, poor Millennial generation of scientists and wring their hands over the future of science, all the while doing nothing about the present of science?

Because the Boomers (and a few years' worth of pre-War folks) cannot acknowledge what they have done to the Gen X scientists. Some of the charges are as follows.

1) Extended graduate school training from 4 years to 6+. Sure they used all sorts of very truthy sounding excuses about mastering different domains, getting those three publications in CNS journals, the collaborative nature of vertically ascending science, etc. But they accomplished it...and their own successes prove it unneeded.

2) Extended postdoctoral "training". The moved us from where even two years as a postdoc prior to professorial appointment was slightly suspicious (in the early to mid 1970s) to a situation in which two sequential 3-5 year postdocs are viewed as the necessary minimum (just a few years ago, prior to the ESI foofraw). The oldest generation oversaw this.

3) Even during the NIH doubling, they grabbed all the grants and kept beating up the newly appointed GenX scientists with Stock Critiques, sent them around the airport traffic pattern in endless revisions and with "good scores" that were clearly unfundable. Anything to delay entry and preserve their expanding empires.

3) The R29 FIRST was dismantled** but was replaced by a NI check box. It supposedly took the oldster power brokers 10 years to realize was to the benefit of, you guessed it, themselves. I.e. those highly established scientists that simply didn't have NIH funding yet. It took me about 3 hours of my first study section meeting to see this.

4) ...aaaand what do you know? By the time the old guard power brokers "realized" this NI problem, they were able to fix it with a time-limited ESI designation tagged to the time of PhD award, instead of the time of Asst Prof appointment. This conveniently skipped right over the Gen X scientists.

So what did this accomplish? Well, on the trainee end of the screw-job this just meant more time in which a venerated or even hard charging mid career lab head could benefit from the intellectual contributions of the Gen X scientists. Pretty much like intellectual vampires. The crediting system whereby author lines expanded and the senior author got all the glory was refined and elaborated from the 1990s through the Naughties as the NIH budget doubled. The number of "postdocs" supported on research grants soared through the roof. And the new models, conceptual breakthroughs and new theoretical approaches continued to give subsequent grant largesse and subsequent paper / finding laurels to the lab head. While the Gen X scientists continued as postdocs, or were shelled out of the system or manged to get a job but couldn't get funded very easily.

I was there. I know who did the actual work in the labs in my fields of interest. I know the way a finding or paper or model resulted in the lab head having copious funding for a decade and a half, verging on two decades now. I know which of those scientists of my generation failed to make it big. There are a lot of them that will never achieve their promise. A lot who had to bail entirely on the career after what would have been a career-making paper as a trainee, if they were just a generation older. I can point to very few of the Gen X people in my fields of closest interest who have hit mid career with anything like the funding, verve and accomplishment of even some of the more, shall we say, pedestrian*** members of the generation just prior to mine****. Actually, come to think of it, I am hard pressed to point to a single one.

I am not suggesting the older folks who benefited had no right to do so. I am not saying they didn't deserve any credit, nor am I claiming they didn't contribute intellectually.

At all.

I am saying that they (as a generation) arranged things so that they got ALL OF the credit and benefit of the collaborative breakthroughs. And this is not right. They did not suffer a similar fate at the hands of their more-senior colleagues because times were very different. Expansive. Lab sizes were smaller and the trainees were more consistently encouraged to fly away and shine on their own. This is what happened through the 70s and 80s when they were transitioning. And yet they have the nerve to call us riff raff. To question our commitment to science in oh so many ways. To continue to credit themselves for breakthroughs and advances that rested on the intellectual labors of a younger generation that they now disparage.

Some of us are surviving. Yes. This is obvious. Some of us are thriving. Some of us squeaking by on fumes and prayers. Some Most of us yo-yo between these extremes.

As the comment said, however, we will never reach our potential as scientists. Not in the way we witnessed the generation or two before us reach theirs. Not as a generation and not as the vast majority of individuals. Ever. It cannot be recovered.

Do you wonder why we are angry at each and every NIH initiative that comes down the pike that is explicitly designed to skip over our generation of scientists, yet again?

This is why.

*yeah. This is as good as it gets.

**for good reason, it had problems

***to be clear, I count myself in this category

****Who managed to get past the noob-abuse and hazing ritual juuuuuuust as the doubling hit stride. This is the generation that managed to land the last few R29s, for reference*****.

*****In truth, those who were never eligible for either R29 or ESI designation makes a much better and tighter demarcation than Gen X versus the Boomers and Millennials when it comes to this stuff. But it is pretty damn inside baseball to use such terms....

Related Reading: Does anybody want to be president? Anyone?

208 responses so far

On the credibility of a Ferguson witness

Dec 16 2014 Published by under Anger

In case you need to argue with some dumbass on the internet or family member at holiday dinner about Ferguson, you should really review the saga of Witness 40.

The DA in the case let this dumpsterfire lying ass racist psycho go up before the Grand Jury and perjure herself. This is, apparently, where the "charging like a football player" bullshit came from. Important, because this particular claim is important to justify why Wilson shot Brown in the top of the head- the alternative account is that Brown was already falling on his face when Wilson shot him in the top of the head as some sort of coup de grace.

The smoking gun report:

DECEMBER 15--The grand jury witness who testified that she saw Michael Brown pummel a cop before charging at him “like a football player, head down,” is a troubled, bipolar Missouri woman with a criminal past who has a history of making racist remarks and once insinuated herself into another high-profile St. Louis criminal case with claims that police eventually dismissed as a “complete fabrication,” The Smoking Gun has learned.

Oh, how so?

Sandra McElroy did not provide police with a contemporaneous account of the Brown-Wilson confrontation, which she claimed to have watched unfold in front of her as she stood on a nearby sidewalk smoking a cigarette.

Instead, McElroy (seen at left) waited four weeks after the shooting to contact cops. By the time she gave St. Louis police a statement on September 11, a general outline of Wilson’s version of the shooting had already appeared in the press. McElroy’s account of the confrontation dovetailed with Wilson’s reported recollection of the incident.

How convenient. Wait, why was she even there in the first place?

Before testifying about the content of her notebook scribblings, McElroy admitted that she had not driven to Ferguson in search of an African-American pal she had last seen in 1988. Instead, McElroy offered a substitute explanation that was, remarkably, an even bigger lie.

McElroy, again under oath, explained to grand jurors that she was something of an amateur urban anthropologist. Every couple of weeks, McElroy testified, she likes to “go into all the African-American neighborhoods.” During these weekend sojourns--apparently conducted when her ex has the kids--McElroy said she will “go in and have coffee and I will strike up a conversation with an African-American and I will try to talk to them because I’m trying to understand more.”


The opening entry in McElroy’s journal on the day Brown died declared, “Well Im gonna take my random drive to Florisant. Need to understand the Black race better so I stop calling Blacks Niggers and Start calling them People.” A commendable goal, indeed.

What a peach of a person she is.

Shaun King at Daily Kos:

Sean Hannity, with a popular drive-time radio show and highly rated prime-time television broadcast, is one of the two or three most important voices in conservative America. Love him or hate him, what he says matters to millions of Americans. What he says over and over again, particularly to an audience that often sees him as a primary source of news, actually matters a great deal. While he may not shape culture for you, he shapes and informs culture for millions of Americans.

This is why, among many reasons, it is so troubling that he regularly quotes and leans on one particular "witness" in the August 9 shooting death of Ferguson teenager Mike Brown by Officer Darren Wilson. This so-called witness, a middle-aged white woman, known only to us as "Witness #40," openly stated to FBI investigators a litany of bizarre and disturbing facts about herself, including that she regularly calls African Americans "niggers and apes," helped start a support group for Darren Wilson encouraging kids to make him Christmas cards, and that she only happened to be on Canfield Drive—which is not even in the town she lives in—the exact moment Darren Wilson killed Mike Brown, on a whim "to understand the black race better so I can stop calling Blacks niggers and start calling them people."

And it wasn't just Hannity either. It was the DA. More Shaun King at Daily Kos:

Sandy McElroy was never near Canfield Drive on August 9. She completely fabricated her entire story weeks after Darren Wilson killed Mike Brown. During their interrogation of her, Sandy McElroy was completely shredded by the FBI as a racist, a liar, unstable, and more. They proved in their own interview, with evidence, that McElroy lied about ever being there, about how she left the scene, about key details of the case that she claimed she witnessed, and more.

Furthermore, Sandy McElroy, beyond being a convicted felon, had a record in St. Louis of interfering with investigations and making preposterous claims about connections she had to cold cases. All of this was known to St. Louis officials. Her extreme racism was not private, but public, and was discussed at great length with the FBI before she was ever allowed to testify before the grand jury.

You must understand, then, that Sandy McElroy, whose testimony matches that of Darren Wilson's better than any witness who testified, was only called to the grand jury, not once, but twice, and allowed to present concocted physical evidence at that, because she was a neutron bomb for this case. Not ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE proving that she was there could be found and scores of evidence that she made the entire thing up was presented weeks before she was ever allowed to testify before the grand jury, but it was all deliberately ignored.

So yeah. When you run up against some Klown that wants to explain to you about "credible" testimony and how the DA and the Grand Jury process was all on the up and up, you go ahead and ask them about Witness 40.

12 responses so far

« Newer posts Older posts »