Case for support of the Grand Jury decision [View all]

[pettypace]

Just finished reading the NY Times story on the Grand jury which can be gleaned at the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/the-duties-of-12-jurors-who-do-not-decide-guilt.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article

I believe it laid out an impressive case for why the Grand Jury decided as it did. The following are excerpts which back up the jury's decision.

* The most credible eyewitnesses to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., said he had charged toward Police Officer Darren Wilson just before the final, fatal shots

* The accounts of several other witnesses from the Ferguson .... including those who said Mr. Brown was trying to surrender — changed over time or were inconsistent with physical evidence

* the officer fired five shots as Mr. Brown charged him, then another five shots as he made what one witness called a “full charge."

*Some people claiming to be eyewitnesses said Mr. Brown was shot in the back....but later changed their stories when autopsies found no injuries entering his back.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I believe one last question remains, who among the 12 jurors disagreed with the decision not to indict. The article states that at least NINE couldn't agree. I'm not sure what that actually means, particularly since there were three blacks and nine whites on the jury.

If the decision was split racially, that would be the biggest story going forward.