If eyewitness versions matched up step for step, I'd have a much bigger concern. Frankly, I think if you piece them all together, along with what we think we know of the cop's version, I don't know if there is a whole lot of differences.
*Cop approached them about being in the street (DJ, FPD and cop's wife's friend all say this)
*There is some question to if the cop moved on and came back or not, but I'd suggest there's not a lot of meaning either way. (DJ and cop's wife's friend say this)
*There was a confrontation at the car. I think most either say this or don't say either way. The nature and extent of that is unknown at this point, though we've heard descriptions from both sides.
*There was a shot fired from within the car. DJ and PD agree.
*MB disengaged the officer, moving himself at least 35 feet from the car. I think everyone agrees with this.
*The officer exited his vehicle and fired as MB was disengaging/fleeing but no bullets struck him in the back
*MB stopped fleeing at some point and turned back to the officer.
*MB was shot several more times.
I'm sure I'm missing something but those basic facts, don't they all pretty much agree on? Obviously the big facts where there will be disagreement is what was MB doing after he turned around.
What is PP if I can show my stupidity again? And what tough questions do you want me to ask? I'd be more than happy to discuss.
Brought this over from the other thread. Sorry for delayed reply, was just too tired to hunt it down last night.
First, PP is the Political Pavilion where I normally hang. I'll save this tangent discussion for another day. You are certainly not stupid, so no worries there!
As to the meat and taters of your reply...
I agree with first two bullet points.
On the third bullet point, agree for the most part, but only DJ and OW (so far) saw this thing from the onset, so there are questions here.
On the fourth bullet point, agree with this, but I do have a question as to whether FPD based their statement about shot in car on DJ's statement, Wilson's, both, or evidence in the car.
On the fifth bullet point, this is where things get real murky for me. I'd like to know where the 35 ft. conclusion came from and the witness accounts about the disengagement and running have no bearing for me. Explain why below.
On the sixth bullet, I agree no bullets struck him in the back. The how and why of Wilson exiting the car and firing are to me, unknown quantities. Again, explain why below.
Agree with last two bullet points.
The reason why the stuff in the middle are still open questions for me is quite simply, I do not believe that Crenshaw, Mitchell, and Brady's accounts are believable. I haven't completely dissected Brady's account because of a lack of time to give specifics why. However, I have done so for Crenshaw and Mitchell on posts #26 and #53 on the link below. Please read my thoughts and the related excerpts they are based on if you are interested.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...el-Brown-*Media-Timelines-Maps*-No-Discussion
I'll stop it here for now, just wanted you to know two things. One, I don't discount witnesses supportive to Brown because I want to believe one version or the other, as I still couldn't vote either way based on evidence we know for a fact if I were a juror. Two, there are only three witnesses that I believe have any merit at this point. DJ, whose statements are extremely shaky. Josie, who gave the officer account. And the guy no one has wanted to talk about, the bystander in the Black Canseco video who corroborates a "Mike was coming at him theme". In order for me to fully give my take on this, I have to step back and start from scratch at how my opinion has been formed. Given there is so much info the group here has discussed, it's difficult to do it any other way without appearing to have a desired outcome. I don't expect to change minds, I only hope to gain credibility and comprehension of how I assess things through logic and intellectual analysis of the information. If I gain that, perhaps people will see information in a new light, which for me is the purpose of participating in a case like this. I have seen info in a new light based on thoughts you and others have provided and adjusted what I think accordingly. Only issue I have is that some (not you) don't seem interested in going about things that way, it's what they believe in spite of what is discussed. Everything has an alternative explanation, which I have no problem with so long as it is logical and practical. Sorry to be so wordy, will try to be more brief if you desire going forward.
Biggest divide between the two schools of thought is assessment of witness accounts, so my ask is that you browse my thoughts on Mitchell and Crenshaw and review the bystander statement from the street video, I am sure someone can link if you are not intimately familiar with it. Thanks for the interest in discussing!
