Dorian isn't the only witness, but any jury is going to give more weight to his testimony. Why is that? Because he was with Mike since the beginning, most of the time he was walking with Mike so he had a great view of what was going on and Dorian was the one who made all thosr statements on TV about what had happened.…

I'll stand by my previous post to you. And I'll also add in that according to this witness, people have been coerced to testify in favor of Brown because "snitches get stitches."

Ok, I read part of the college journalist major's legal analysis which she posted to her Facebook page and I got to this part and stopped: "Officer Wilson broke police self-defense protocol, which teaches to disarm and incapacitate rather than kill and teaches officers to go for body shots." Gee Shelby, that's…

Yeah, I've seen that matrix before. It's missing a number of things. First, if an account conflicts with the physical evidence, their entire account is suspect. Also, a number of witnesses listed on this finally admitted that they hadn't actually seen what had happened. This matrix pays no attention to a concept…

"When you say the physical evidence "backs up" the officer's story, which version of his story are you referring to?" CNN thought it stayed pretty consistent (http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/27/us/…). I'd like to see a matrix of Dorian's accounts from his numerous TV interviews and then grand jury testimony ... what a…

How did the officer know for a fact that Brown was not armed again? The grand jury listened to 25 days of evidence and found no probable cause. You would have liked for the proceedings to be conducted in a different manner and I get that. But these people did look at the evidence and came to a determination based on…

And you're failing to weigh the evidence both for and against. It's not enough to say that there's evidence both for and evidence. You have to take a look at the quality. If you have physical evidence that establishes certain facts, conflicting witness testimony isn't going to do it.

What about Brown's blood on the interior of the car, including the part where blood was found on the interior of the driver's side door.

Yeah, have you ever just sat around and thought to yourself. "Maybe that's just a lame Gawker blog cliche like 'blaming the victim' or whatever and that my point actually didn't hold shit for water to begin with?" No, I know you haven't.

Again, take a look at the blood stains and after that consider the location of bullet casings and then tell me whose story is utter and complete horseshit.

"At the time of the stop Johnson and Brown were not doing anything. Not running, not terrorizing, not threatening, just walking. So yeah, they weren't doing anything."

Yeah sure, but that doesn't address the issue of whether this grand jury made the proper determination based on this evidence. And if not, what did they screw up?

On the issue of whether the officer had a reasonable fear that his life was in danger, the grand jury considered evidence such as blood stains that reached an ending point and his body was found 20 feet closer to the officer, indicating to investigators that he turned around and then approached the officer. Any…

Let's say the prosecutor hadn't thrown the case and bear in mind that the grand jury heard 25 days of evidence, totaling over 70 hours and 60 witnesses and, based on that, couldn't even meet one of the lowest standards in the criminal justice system ("probable cause"). But, let's just say that he hadn't screwed…