It's a good thing that so many people are criticizing the grand jury result in the Michael Brown case, because there's a lot to be upset about. The more you look at the facts of the case, it's hard to understand how the grand jury came to the conclusion that there was no probable cause to indict Wilson.
There are inconsistencies in the account Wilson gave to the grand jury and some legal experts, including a noted forensic pathologist, say Wilson's version of how the shooting took place, doesn't conform with the physical evidence.
A recent piece in Mother Jones magazine analyzed the testimony given by dozens of witnesses to the shooting, and compared that with Wilson's testimony, and the statement by St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch announcing there was no basis for an indictment. The article identified a number of discrepancies, relating to different accounts about the initial confrontation between Wilson and Brown, how it escalated, whether Wilson shot at Brown when he and his friend Dorian Johnson ran away, and whether Brown had his hands up when Wilson shot at him, after Brown had stopped running and turned around.
Two findings are particularly noteworthy from the article, which drew in part from an analysis by PBS News Hour of 500 pages of witness testimony and Wilson's statements:
While Wilson testified he did not shoot at Brown after he fled, a full 16 witnesses said he did. Only four witnesses supported Wilson on this point;
Though Wilson told the grand jury he shot Brown only after he turned around with his hands down and began advancing towards the officer, 16 witnesses said Brown had his hands raised after he turned around. Only two witnesses said Brown did not have his hands up.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
