Re: ok start with the very first witness starting on page 11
Originally posted by qazplm:
He says the following:
1. I saw Brown facing the cop
2. Then I saw Brown point at us, which scared me
3. Then I saw Brown turn and run
4. Then the officer followed
5. Then the officer fired one shot while Brown was running away
6. then the witness says I thought it hit Brown because he spun around like his leg had been hit, but I didn't see any blood
7. Then Brown starts walking towards Wilson
8. then Wilson guns him down
So tell me what about this witness you find not credible.
OK, so first, this witness (page 11 of vol 12) is in his car. He didn't see the first shots nor the altercation at the car, but that's immaterial.
What you left out was that he testified that he thought the officer was "in a shootout" and that the "large black man appeared to be pointing a gun." So, obviously, he's mistaken there.
He did not see the officer exit his vehicle. (To wit, witness 12 who I discussed below, said the officer got out of his vehicle, took big steps and started firing immediately as Brown was moving away, and indicated that Brown appeared to have been hit while running away, which we forensically know is not true). Even in the testimony that supports being shot while moving away, they don't agree.
He says:
"Yes, my first, that was my first view of Mr. Brown. He was in a direct line just past the officer and he was pointing in our direction."
...
Q: "The first time you saw him, you saw the front?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "Okay, you never saw the back of him?"
A: "No, I did not."
His testimony continues that Brown and the officer were out of the car. Brown and the officer faced down as though it was a shootout. Wilson fired while Brown was facing him. Brown turned and ran. Wilson pursued, apparently firing one shot, when Brown turned around again.
No one else that I've read has testified to this "showdown" followed by Brown turning and running. The "hands up" testimonies have all said "Brown ran, the cop ran out of his car, started shooting as Brown ran away" or something to that effect. The other testimonies (the ones that support the narrative quoted by the
DA), all say Brown was running when Wilson got out of the car, but
stopped and turned. No showdown followed by running. Everyone except this guy is consistent on that point.
As they ask the witness to describe Brown, he said "Blue jeans, white t-shirt and tennis shoes." He wasn't in jeans, but that's easy to mistake. He is specifically asked if he saw a hat. He said he didn't remember one. One of the primary descriptors of Brown given to police was a red Cardinals baseball cap. It's possible that he just missed that, though I'd think that would be the one thing that stands out from that distance. Either way, his description of Brown is flawed.
Moving on, he said Wilson fired "one shot" while Brown was running away, and that it appeared he was hit in his "left leg or low left side" because he "staggered to the left".
Brown has no injuries to the left side of his body other than abrasions caused by the fall.
Perhaps this gentleman thought Brown was facing away, since he testified that he thought he was hit on his left side, but forensic evidence only shows gunshot injuries to his RIGHT side. Thus, it could be that this gentleman had that wrong, and that Brown was facing the officer. Either way, Brown was not shot on the left side of his body, so he got that wrong.
Finally, he said that after Wilson "gunned him down", Brown fell to his right and appeared to land on his back. Brown's body was found face down, so he got that wrong too.
It appears to me that he is mistaking facing and facing away, which would be understandable given the distance. He testified they were never closer than two blocks from the shooting.
Later on, this witness testifies that he is "a convicted felon and I don't have any love for the police." He offered the "love for police" part freely. The questioner asked him about serving time, drawing the felon comment. I can see how that might be viewed as manipulative for sure, but why offer "no love for the police?" Odd to me, but his life experience is much different than mine, obviously.
He also says that he was playing with his phone and his attention was drawn by the first "three or four shots" which he heard. It's been consistent within many testimonies that three groups of shots occurred: two in the car, several as Brown faced Wilson down initially, and several more in the fatal volley. It could be that he heard the first two shots, or it could be that he heard the second batch and thus all he saw was the third. Either way, his version of the story has you believe that Brown ran from Wilson twice, which no one else testifies to.
So while I don't question this witness' "credibility" per se, I do question his version of the story as very much flawed and would consider this witness of limited value given the discrepancies between his version and literally every other version I've read (which at this point is about twenty of them). Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, but if I'm putting myself in the position of a juror, I'd put little stock in this account.
It would be enough for me to want to corroborate the firing while running away part, but I'd need other credible, more accurate witnesses to do that rather than leaning on this one.