Please watch this CNN report on the Ferguson, Missouri shooting. Please.

[KeepItReal]

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/09/10/ac-dnt-kaye-new-michael-brown-witness.cnn.html

*This* video is why there are protests all over about this sham Grand Jury process.

[rug]

1. Don't tell me. The DA did not call them to the Grand Jury as witnesses.

[KeepItReal]

2. Prosecutor McCollough only credits forensics and the Officer's testimony

Eyewitnesses were totally discounted by him, except to say that they were false and/or unreliable in their testimony.

[rug]

3. Then he's an ass.

The purpose of the grand jury is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for the crimes charged. Their only role is to determine if there is evidence for each element required to establish the crime(s). If so, the case goes to trial.

Determining credibility and resolving contradictions in the evidence is for the petit jury, the trial jury.

If this is representative of the case he gave to the grand jury, he's derelict.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

4. Speaking of forensics, what does the blood spatter evidence say about

Mike Brown's movements during the altercation? This for anyone who has had a chance to look at the data dump, I've not had a chance yet.

For instance, does the blood spatter evidence indicate that Mike was charging wilson?

[sabrina 1]

5. That information was leaked earlier, about the altercation inside the car.

Airc Mike Brown's friend, who was right there, stated that Wilson pulled Brown into the car, pulled out his gun and shot him, not sure where, the arm I think, Brown struggled to get away..

As far as I know, Johnson, his friend, had no knowledge of what evidence they were collecting when he gave that account to the press.

Since he WAS right there the question is was he called before the GJ? That account would certainly explain the blood evidence.

We know that a concerted effort was made to discredit Johnson.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

6. Yes, re: Johnson. He disputed McCullough/Wilson's account yet again last

night in an interview with Chris Hayes. He's adamant in his version of the story and isn't backing down.

Back to the blood spatter evidence, if Mike Brown was hit two or more times, especially the shot to his hand, there would have been a blood trail and that blood trail would tell the movement of Mike Brown. It would indicate whether or not Mike was charging wilson as wilson claims. I was just wondering if that is what the blood evidence shows.

[rgbecker]

7. In the DA's little talk on Monday night he said Brown fell 150+ feet from the car

and that blood was found another 25 feet further...indicating to the DA that Brown was returning towards Wilson's car when he was hit.

[sabrina 1]

8. Well, Wilson himself said in his interview that Brown was far enough away

from him, even IF we believe him that he turned around and was coming towards him, that any reasonable person has to conclude that he did not need to kill him.

All he had to do was get in his car. Brown was wounded at that point, about, I believe, 150 feet away from him, backup was on the way. But at that point, Wilson made the CALCULATED decision to kill him. He said so himself, 'I did a mental check to determine whether or not I could legally shoot this guy'.

Paraphrasing, but in essence, he has told us now that his life was NOT, as he claimed, in danger. That he coldly assessed, NOT whether he had to save his own life, but whether he could legally kill Brown.

As for the blood spatter, do you mean near the car? I would assume there would be a trail from the car, but do not know what the evidence was regarding that.

And this is why there has to be a trial. This GJ's decision, now that we know the Prosecutor was raising funds for HIS supposed suspect, the whole thing is so tainted, I would imagine it has to be dismissed.