+tramdr what you are saying is incorrect. As reported (although not reported to the degree and prominence it should have been) there were as far as I read the news, 7-8 witnesses who gave accounts consistent with Wilson’s account. I never counted #40 and see was exposed during the grand jury If you read the transcripts ( http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2014/12/grand-jury-evidence-in-michael-brown.html ) you can see that the prosecutors made her look like a racist mentally ill person with mental problems who was lying and they did that also in front of the grand jury as well as questioning her motives fro testifying for Wilson, again, in front of the grand jury as you can see from the transcripts And don’t be ridiculous, I didn’t bring race into this. MANY Brown supporters have made it very clear that they think race had something to do with the shooting! 10 remembers what he saw: this witness who was probably the first recorded witness and all most certainly witness #10: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mAaJMBxKA4&list=PLfrlsC1yJ2dQv69rdtXrPOZhjM32FJp4l his clear testimony of not only Brown charging and stopping and charging again but how he heard others making false claims: “and he started charging towards the police officer. … then Mr. Brown continued, started again to charge towards him and after that the police officer returned fire and um well not returned, I’m using wrong … a started to fire once more at him. … nd, I was tellin’ ___ what happened and after me tellin’ ___ what happened and I’m hearin’ eveybody their side of the story, saying, “Oh, the police officer shot that kid for no reason. He had his hands up” and me knowing and seeing what actually took place, that wasn’t true and a, there was different sides to the story and every side wasn’t true so I felt uncomfortable in that situation so I decided to – to walk back to the um to ___ that I was at, originally at.” http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2014/11/witness-10-of-michael-brown-shooting.html How can you think witnesses who claimed that Brown didn’t move toward the officer are credible when the blood evidence proves they are wrong. And as I said, you are wrong about your claim that only 2 support Wilson’s account. Here are two more examples that describe what Wilson said happened: Witness #48:”the dude turned back around and started charging towards the police officer, the police officer told him to stop at least three times. … And the boy wouldn’t stop” http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2014/11/witness-48-of-michael-brown-shooting.html and this one: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1371077-grand-jury-volume-11.html#document/p181 A: When I heard the gunshots and saw him firing his weapon,he was, Michael had stopped, he had stopped. He threw his hands up and then he put his hands down, Michael turned around and then he started running, he kind of shuffled back and forth a little bit like he was confused or something. And then he started running towards my car, he started running back towards us. The officer had ran, he was running after him. He had stopped, I heard him say get down about two or three times and he kind of veered off to the side a little bit, but he still was aiming his gun at the guy, at Michael. And he after, he held his gun out at him, he was aiming the gun at him, he was telling him to get down. And like I said, Michael was shuffling back and forth like he was confused and then he started running and that’s when I started hearing him shoot.
Q: While he was running toward the officer?
A: Kind of towards the officer. I couldn’t be sure if he was running exactly towards the officer or just trying to run past him.
Q: But he was running in the officer’s direction?
A: He was running pretty much our direction. The officer was pretty much between us and Michael.
Q: And the officer was saying stop or get down?
A: Get down.
The very fact that there are witnesses who are giving the same account as Wilson gave should be evidence that this is what happened because where would they even get the idea that the sequence of events which matches the audio and blood evidence plus what Wilson said? You could never get a conviction if it had gone to trial because there is no physical evidence which contradicts what Wilson said, the evidence is consistent with what he said. You have to be able to PROVE Wilson did something wrong. And that cannot be done. One of my next videos will show how CNN misleads the public about this case by stating false info about it.