On the other hand, reporting that a particular person or persons have been charged with a crime is merely reporting on a matter of public record.

  I can't see that fairly being called a media conspiracy.

  * A couple of notes on this. First, some  media reporting that is subject to fair criticism came a few months back when numerous outlets claimed the Obama administration had initiated the requirement that purchasers declare ethnicity and race. That was false because the recent change to the form actually only created a new category of "ethnicity" requiring people to declare whether they are hispanic or non-hispanic. The old form essentially asked for the same information but put hispanic under "race" rather than having a separate category.

Stamps
Sons of Liberty
Tea

You used a noun where you should have used an adjective.

1.  There is no publicly available first-hand report/account from Darren Wilson, only second- and third-hand, cobbled-together, devoid of challenge, relayed-by-the-media - always so reliable in their interpretation of what someone has said, right? - or friends of Wilson's.  And they are being put out there by people who weren't there, saw nothing, experienced nothing.  There were statements by the police chief that are in conflict with the story you keep trying to tell.  

Ever play "Gossip?"  You know, the game where you whisper something to the person next to you, who whispers what you said to the person next to them, and so on, and eventually, there's someone whispering in your ear what you said to the first person...and how seldom it resembles anything like what you said.

2.  I answered your question about what I would have done - or what I would not have done.  You have failed to provide a logical reason why someone in fear for his life went after the person he allegedly says put him in that position.  You haven't told us how someone running away is putting the person he's running away from in fear to the point where he starts shooting at him.  

I realize this all took place within a matter of seconds, so when Brown takes off, I can see Wilson looking to see where he's headed, I can see Wilson putting out a call for assistance with information about where he is and the direction in which Brown is fleeing.  I can see him putting his car in gear and trying to follow Brown.  But there is no logic in Wilson being in mortal danger or even thinking he's in mortal danger from someone who's running away from him.

3.  You keep hammering the image of Brown as a hulking menace, but you never speak to Wilson's size and the fact that he was the one with the gun.  All the reports I have seen put Wilson as being at least as big as Brown, and yet, you never mention the possibility that Brown could have been afraid of this behemoth of a cop with a gun.  How is that not part of this equation?

4.  We know that no two people will experience an event in exactly the same way; differences in what they report are not necessarily because they or others involved are lying about what they saw or heard, and yet, that's your explanation for why one person's account differs from another's.

The statements by Dorian, Piaget, Tiffany, Mike Brady, the two landscapers,... are all acceptable in a court of law as first hand evidentiary testimony. They were eyewitnesses.

The statements by Wilson's whatevers who remain nameless to this day is nothing but hearsay and worthless in a court of law. They mean nothing.

On the bright side, your paragraphs are getting better.

He can choose not to present relevant information and can put forth information that would not be allowed in a court of law.

Case in point -  McCulloch and the Murray - Beasley Grand Jury:

Fourteen years ago, the two officers who shot Murray and Beasley were also invited to testify before the grand jury. Both men told jurors that Murray's car was coming at them and that they feared being run over. McCulloch said that "every witness who was out there testified that it made some forward motion." But a later federal investigation showed that the car had never come at the two officers: Murray never took his car out of reverse.

An exhaustive St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation found that only three of the 13 detectives who testified had said the car moved forward: the two who unloaded their guns and a third whose testimony was, as McCulloch admitted, "obviously...completely wrong." McCulloch never introduced independent evidence to help clarify for the grand jury whether Murray's car moved forward.

On the last day of testimony, an investigator in McCulloch's office read out a list of every interaction Murray and Beasley had had with law enforcement, even arrests that never resulted in charges.

A few hours later, the grand jury voted not to press charges. Link

5th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 Many (not all) states have a similar constitutional provision.

 I also think it is way too simplistic to ascribe many of the ills of our criminal justice system absolutely or relative to other systems to the institution of the grand jury.

  We have higher crime rates than most nations. which is a reflection of two primary factors: number of crimes committed and an extensive police apparatus, neither of which is influenced by the existence or absence of the grand jury system. In terms of punishment, that is driven as much or more by Legislation (meaning both the enactment of many criminal offense statutes and the legislative  establishment of harshly punitive  penalties for violations)than the mechanics of the process.

  I'll agree the grand jury rarely serves the purpose of being a bulwark against the power of the State to deprive people of their liberty, but I also don't think abolishing it (which is very unlikely) would necessarily provide any more protection of individual liberty and depending upon the regime that replaced it could exacerbate the relative power of the state over individuals.

  My essential belief is that large  "systems" work mainly in the way that the people who operate them dictate as opposed to mechanically or schematically. Any system is primarily dependent on the competence, integrity, good faith, values, goals, etc.  of the people within it.

  Short version, it's much more of a political matter and change (in any direction) comes from whom we entrust to operate systems much more than it will come with tinkering with the formalism and structure.