With one exception (which was obviously perjured) they agreed that Brown was advancing on Wilson and that he never raised his hands significantly. All that commented on it, as best I can remember, said the shooting happened from close range, not the 20-30 feet claimed in initial reports.

This was corroborated by the blood trail that went at least twenty feet behind Brown's body, indicating that he was advancing when he was shot. The shell casings also seem to be staggered, corroborating Wilson's account.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/11/major-contradictions-in-eyewitness-accounts-of-m ichael-browns-death/383157/?single_page=true

B) Cops are taught to pursue dangerous suspects.

One woman told an elaborate story about driving around looking for a friend's apartment when she pulled into a parking lot to ask for directions. She said she was there in time to see Brown "lunging" into the car to his waist, she said. Later, she said, Wilson had his gun drawn and pointed at Brown. That's when "Brown started to charge . . . kind of like a football player, like this, with his hands out," she said, clenching her fists.

But federal prosecutors later discredited the woman, demanding to know the spelling of the friend's name and asking to look at her e-mail records to prove that she had written a message to the friend. The prosecutors then returned from a break to say they viewed her computer search history, finding suspicious searches, and that there was no report of a car matching hers near the scene of the crime.

The penalties for possession of marijuana, in Missouri, are said to be quite harsh.  This leads to the inference that Brown, when Wilson backed up to him, had cause to be alarmed that he was about to be "busted" not only for theft, but possession of marijuana as well.  Just how would one go about persuading a jury that he didn't attack Wilson in an attempt to escape detention and "frisking"?  On the testimony of Dorian Johnson?

Why is there a distance between them if they are from the same wound of the same person???

It appears as if #20 could be the right hand bleeding as he is facing away and #19 is the same right hand bleeding after he has turned around.

But more importantly look carefully at 19: The blood goes out about 3 feet from the main spot and then comes back. Why would that be???

Answer is simple: He lifted his bleeding right hand up and out after he turned around.

That blood pattern shows that he had his hands up and/or out at some point and for some period of time after he turned around.

Obviously, Wilson intended to question Brown about the Ferguson Market theft when he backed up, and attempted to exit his patrol car.  This is consistent with his recent ABC interview.  

He described the soot, or unburned gunpowder, on a graze wound on Mr. Brown's hand, proof that it was shot at a range of six to nine inches.

So all the slop that we have been treated to for the last two months has been exactly that. How does 6 to 9 inches away indicate a struggle for the gun.

Furthermore we find out that Brown was never inside the SUV as we have been inundated with for 3 months -- that it was just his arm and hands. He was outside the window the whole time.

Then Wilson in an interview today admits that he had a grip on Brown's right wrist and was pulling on it with his left hand while trying to shoot him with the gun in his right hand -- just as witnesses said.

That explains the gunshot to Brown's right hand more than him reaching for the gun with his right hand across his body -- something virtually impossible to do even for a contortionist.

And of course no one was able to explain the shot to Brown's right forearm unless he was shot from behind running away or shot with his forearm and hands up facing the shooter.

Then we find out that Wilson was allowed to leave the scene and wash up and bag his own gun. Really!!!  

And then there is McCulloch's inability to tell time trying to convince us all that a 12:02 call was made at 12:01. Really!!! It must have been one incriminating call -- and it was.

The fact remains that Wilson's account of what happened after he left the SUV would have taken 30 to 40 seconds if it went the way he prefabricates it -- but he was pumping bullets into Brown within 7 seconds and was finished wihin just 14 seconds.

No witnesses were needed for the Grand Jury to have known that -- just incontrovertible timestamped forensic evidence that had to be lied about to the very end -- and a whole lot of people saw it coming.

It is the grand jury's function not `to enquire ... upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,' or otherwise to try the suspect's defenses, but only to examine `upon what foundation [the charge] is made' by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

Compare Justice Scalia's description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:

    And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.

On page 228 of his testimony is the accounting for his shots:

[A] He fires 2 in the SUV.

[B] Then after chasing Brown he says that he shoots "a series of shots". He doesn't know how many but he says he hit Brown atleast once.

[C] Then he says Brown keeps coming at him and he shoots "another round of shots". He says he sees him flinch. [Glide audio identifies this series as 6 shots]

[D] Then he says he fires the final ones aiming at  his head. [Glide audio recording identifies this as 4 shots].

A,C, and D are all scientifically documented but B is not. Wilson says that it was more than one but that exceeds the capacity of his weapon.

I'm betting B however is the 13th  and missing bullet and the smoking gun of the shot fired while Brown's back was turned. It was the shot fired that made  Brown turn around. It may not have hit anything but it was fired while his back was turned.

1. When are you going to learn how to post links properly for this forum?
   
2. When are you going to learn that the adversary system is a something you only find in English speaking countries?  The questions the Grand Jurors asked serve a better purpose than cross examination.  In the US, especially, lawyers only ask questions in court for which they already know the answer.
   
3. Have you been following any blogs that are doing an in depth study of the evidence, like this one?  

On the map there are markers 19 and 20 -- the spots of profuse bleeding from a hand wound per experts.

Why is there no blood marking anywhere before that??? There's a lot of blood at 19 and 20 but very little back at the Tahoe. Why???

Is 19 and 20 where he was shot in the right hand with his back turned as he was still running away, subsequently stopping, and turning around???

12 shell casings found at the scene with one live round still left in the chamber per Wilson at variance with Wilson's telling of events.