WITNESS NUMBER 10.

[Whirlaway]

Witness No. 10 testified:

Witness No. 10′s testimony matches Darren Wilson’s in every important detail. He saw Brown inside the police car window, heard a shot, and saw Brown running away (from this, the witness initially feared that Brown had killed the officer).

Witness No. 10 then saw Wilson pursue Brown with his gun drawn, but not shooting. Brown then turned around and made “some sort of body gesture.” The witness wasn’t sure what the gesture was, but stated, “I could say for sure he never put his hands up after he did his body gesture.” Instead, “he ran towards the officer full charge.” Moreover, according to Witness 10, Brown began charging immediately after making his “body gesture,” which the witness described as “like a shoulder shrug or him pulling his pants up.”

The officer fired several shots at him and to give an estimate, I would say roughly around five to six shots was fired at Mike Brown. Mike Brown was still coming towards the office and at this point I’m thinking, wow, is this officer missing Mike Brown at this close of a range.

Mike Brown continuously came forward in the charging motion and at some point, at one point he started to slow down and he came to a stop. And when he stopped, that’s when the officer ceased fire and when he ceased fired, Mike Brown started to charge once more at him. When he charged once more, the officer returned fire with, I would say, give an estimate of three to four shots. And that’s when Mike Brown finally collapsed.

Witness No. 10′s testimony is consistent with the forensic evidence — e.g. Brown’s DNA in the car, all bullets holes in the front of Brown’s body and with a downward trajectory. In addition, this witness made his original statement within 48 hours of the incident, before any autopsy and before any media reports on the physical evidence. His subsequent testimony to the grand jury matched his original statement. As noted, it also matches Wilson’s account, which was not available to Witness 10 when he made his initial statement.

Witness No. 10 wasn’t the only person who testified that Brown charged Wilson. There were, however, some witnesses who provided very different accounts. Indeed, PBS has said that its “data” showed that “[m]ore than 50 percent of the witness statements said that Michael Brown held his hands up when Darren Wilson shot him. (16 out of 29 such statements).”

Unfortunately for PBS, much of the testimony that conflicted with Witness No. 10′s is highly problematic. In some instances, it was contradicted by the physical evidence (e.g., no bullet holes in Brown’s back); in others the witnesses’ gave self-contradictory statements. The grand jury was well aware of these inconsistencies.

Witness No. 10 described the witness intimidation campaign that began almost immediately after the shooting of Brown. He recalled being verbally abused by the gathering crowd when he said what he had seen. This might help explain why accounts of the incident varied from Witness No. 10′s.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...ense-claim.php

[JD Barleycorn]

DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS!!!! I know how I'm supposed to feel!

[LexusLover]

Did witness 10 personally appear before the grand jury? I have checked the article.

[Whirlaway]

Yes. Here is a more precise analysis of the testimony of Witness #10.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...eded-to-shoot/

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Did witness 10 personally appear before the grand jury? I have checked the article.

[Jackie S]

It states in the article that "he told the Grand Jury".

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

It states in the article that "he told the Grand Jury".

I saw that. I haven't been sifting through the details, and I am just curious as to how many actually appeared in body ... by video .. or by written statements. And I'm not focusing on the OP or any posters in here .. more on the "reporting" generally. Apparently, some of it was "way off" prior to the verdict.

The prosecutors can use hearsay to the grand jury.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I saw that. I haven't been sifting through the details, and I am just curious as to how many actually appeared in body ... by video .. or by written statements. And I'm not focusing on the OP or any posters in here .. more on the "reporting" generally. Apparently, some of it was "way off" prior to the verdict.

The prosecutors can use hearsay to the grand jury.

You would only hope that testimony that critical would be done in person.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

You would only hope that testimony that critical would be done in person.

Yes, there was some ranting on the House floor ... I think it was a series of those recorded presentations during which the floor is empty ... for photo/video-ops .... in which the "quality" of the proceedings were being bashed .... one side looking at one set of "witnesses" and the other side looking at the other. I listened to some of it, but the tone and attitude was offensive. Not very informative and creating confusion.

The suggestion IS being made the prosecutors didn't present all the witnesses.

[Whirlaway]

If you are serious about digging deep into the weeds on the grand jury testimony I have provided a very excellent link to Mr. Paul Cassell who has been following/analyzing the proceedings for the Washington Post. Click on the numerous links in his articles to dig deeper and deeper. If you are so inclined.

[rioseco]

This time the bad fell, while the good prevailed.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

IIf you are so inclined.

If I were representing Wilson, I would already have the materials in hand, and in the process of obtaining all audio, video, and digital voice and image recordings among all major networks and locals, along with independents .. and preparing for a change of venue for the anticipated Federal circus and civil litigation so some more lawyers can get some air time, with the hope of delaying the matters until Holder and Obmainable are out, so they can be deposed regarding their "special knowledge" upon which they based their "informed" opinions.

Rodney King lasted for YEARS!

[JD Barleycorn]

So when are they going to indict those who obviously lied to the grand jury? Last I heard perjury was still a crime, or at least it was when Clinton did it.

[i'va biggen]

Are they under oath? Wilson ranted for hours, and if you think he didn't slant the Testimony in his favor you are delusional. And no before you ask.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Are they under oath?

It is customary for witnesses before a grand jury to be sworn.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Yes, grand jury testimony is subject to the full pains and penalties of perjury.

Wilson did not rant, he testified, which he was not obligated to do. In fact, most defense lawyers would never allow their client to testify before a grand jury, since the defense lawyer cannot help in any way.

Yet Wilson chose to do so anyways, and was questioned by both the DA and the members of the jury for over 4 hours.

Witness #10 was telling that exact story from the first hour after the shooting occurred.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyEoNbJYMsE

Fast forward to about 6 minutes into the video. As you can see, the police are still just arriving on the scene, beginning crowd control, and an EMT even goes over to check on Michael Brown. So at this point, there is absolutely no media spin, Wilson himself hasn't given a statement yet.

Yet somehow, the person speaking off camera gives an account of what happened that precisely tracks the statement that Wilson would give later that same day, and would continue to repeat, unchanged throughout this entire sorry mess.

Know why this witness's account and Wilson's account track, and do not change? They have the benefit of being TRUE. After more than 3 months, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the lame stream media, still have yet to ever report on this recording, or the clear implications this video has in fully exonerating Wilson.