This is not how I remember the micheal brown shooting. From wiki

[Uponthegears]

117. Please do not apologize for the disjointed C&P

I appreciate the fact that you included (at least the DOJ's) description of (some of) the facts, instead of the more popular straw man approach of saying "Obama's DOJ cleared Wilson, you must hate Obama."

(Aside, the investigation was conducted primarily by a police which the DOJ found later to have engaged in systemic discrimination against people of color. The grand jury presentation was structured to favor Wilson (e.g., This was not a "grand jury investigation" where the grand jury determined which witnesses would be subpoenaed etc., A undeniably pro-cop DA allowed Wilson to tell his version of the story as called witnesses favorable to Brown. Witnesses hostile to Wilson were cross-examined aggressively by prosecutors. In a normal grand jury, the prosecution calls ONLY those witnesses which are needed to establish the elements of the offense and the grand jury decides only whether the evidence against the accused -- standing alone and without hearing any of the defense evidence AND with giving that evidence every reasonable inference pointing toward guilt -- is sufficient to establish the elements of an offense.). The FBI investigation was conducted by career agents with criminal investigation backgrounds, who are no less biased than any other cop, and consisted almost entirely of interviews of witnesses who had already been questioned by a police force which was trying to make sure Wilson was never charged. Sanitizing this process by whining in essence "Obama and Holder agreed" is the refuge of a person who cannot or will not discuss facts.)

Even though they don't show the full extent of the manner in which the racist Ferguson police force led this whitewash, the excerpts you included do illustrate much of what I have been trying to explain. Rather than pull out the actual statements and transcripts, which are still available online, I will rely on the descriptions in the report.

First, let's look at who Witness 122 and 130 were. The were the two guys working in close proximity to the scene who had a conversation with Brown prior to his death. According to your excerpt from the DOJ report, both issued one page statements on the advice of their employer. Witness 122 also gave an anonymous interview to a media outlet. As the news article explained, these statements basically describe a murder.

I want to point out something right here and let you keep it in the back of your mind. Witness 122 was questioned FOUR TIMES (6 total statements minus the written statement for his employer and the media interview) by the Ferguson cops AND then attacked by the DA when he testified before the grand jury. As for the manner in which he was questioned, here's an interesting tidbit from your excerpt : "After learning about that autopsy, he realized that Brown was not shot in the back and admittedly changed his account." So after 122 gives his statement (which, btw, said that Brown was shot BOTH in the back and in the front), the cops go back to him and confront him with the autopsy and make him give another statement to "explain" why Brown wasn't hit in the back.

Now let's go to why the DOJ says 122 is "incredible."

First, they say it's because he changes his story to eliminate the "shot in the back ' part. Is there another way to explain this other than that "he's a liar and/or that ALL aspects of his story are unreliable?" Well, yes there is. All of the rounds missing from Wilson's weapons are not accounted for by looking at Wilson's vehicle and Brown's body. In other words, Wilson missed with some of the shots he fired at Brown. Unless you were bound and determined to discount the "hands up" part of the story, wouldn't it be equally, if not more, reasonable to conclude that Witness 122 saw the shots being fired and Brown stop running and naturally assumed that he had been hit? Does this make the "hands up" part incredible? In fact, wouldn't that have almost been a logical assumption?

Next, they say it's because Witness 122 says he hears Brown say "Okay, Okay, Okay" and other witnesses don't. Everyone who claimed to have seen this incident did not have the same perspective. All were not (because none of us do) paying attention to the same things. The other witnesses did not all observe the incident in exactly the same way either. In fact, the "bull rush" witness who gets cited over and over again by Brown haters was the ONLY witness who claimed that. Just because others did not observe this aspect of the incident makes 122 totally incredible how (unless you are just looking for a reason)?

Next, they say it's because 122 said he was "dead on his feet? before he turned around and the fatal injury was undoubtedly inflicted as Brown was leaning forward. Isn't the most logical, in fact the obvious, explanation for this "inconsistency with the physical evidence" that A CONSTRUCTION WORKER ISN'T A DOCTOR and that he was simply wrong and Brown was not fatally wounded before he turned around, but instead that 122 merely saw him moving in an unnatural manner (as one might when in fear for their life and facing a barrage of gunfire). If that were the case, isn't it equally possible that the fatal shot was fired as Brown fell/stumbled forward (a fact described by all witnesses other than the "bull rush" witness, and Wilson). Unless you are looking for a reason to claim the "hands up" never happened, why would you conclude that 122 was qualified to make an assessment of Brown's viability instead of concluding that his medical opinion was an assumption and that the important part of his story was that Brown stopped, turned, and put his hands up?

Next, they say it was because of the "three cops" story. Here, it's important to note that this wasn't in his original statement, but was something he said much later after being repeatedly confronted by the cops and cajoled by the community. Would it have also been reasonable to conclude that 122 conflated his observations of the original incident with his observations of the aftermath when Brown's body was left lying in the street for hours? If not, would it also have been reasonable to conclude that his later statements had been influenced by the talk in the community, whereas his earlier statements were not? What, if anything, makes his ORIGINAL statement "incredible" to anyone without an agenda?

Finally, they say it's incredible because, after being repeatedly questioned by racist cops, after having his credibility challenged by racist cops, he recants his original story and makes a statement saying he actually around the corner? Do you believe that cops get the truth by interrogating people of color in the manner 122 was interrogated? Do you blame 122 for finally giving up after 4 interrogations and telling the cops what they wanted to hear?

I ask all these questions for a simple reason. I agree that a person COULD find 122 incredible for all the reasons under the circumstances described in the DOJ report, particularly if they wanted to believe that Michael Brown was not murdered in cold blood after surrendering. They, however, COULD have concluded otherwise. THAT, however, SHOULD HAVE BEEN a determination made by a jury at a trial.

There is one other thing, however, that was not mentioned in the DOJ report. Something that happened before 122 even gave his original statement. Something that happened even before 122 heard the stories out in the community. Something that happened even before 122 was questioned over and over by racist cops looking to clear their fellow officer. Something that the law considers so inherently reliable that it is admissible at trial even if the witness does not take the stand. It's known as an "excited utterance." It's a statement made about a cotemporaneous event under circumstances where the declarant was under stress.

Witness 122 was one of the two men who were videotaped on someone's cell phone AS MICHAEL BROWN WAS BEING KILLED. In it, they are seen pointing at the scene as the Wilson is putting a bullet in the top of the unarmed Brown's head and screaming that he had his hands up and was trying to surrender.

All the incidents the DOJ throws out there for why 122 MIGHT not be believable do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to affect the credibility of what 122 said as he observed the end of Michael Brown's life. That video should give anyone who isn't out to excuse Wilson and deny the "hands up" scenario pause before they accept the career DOJ/FBI willingness to interpret every possible problem with 122's statements against the credibility of the core of his story.