Michael Brown Shooting: Witness Accounts

I spent a little time this morning compiling a list of various accounts of the Michael Brown shooting excluding the FPD statements.

Dorian Johnson

Aug 9, 2014 KMOV interview
KMOV source, CNN video, On YouTube, transcript

Aug 11, 2014 MSNBC All In with Chris Hayes
MSNBC video (@ 4:40), on YouTube, transcript

Aug 12, 2014 MSNBC PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton
MSNBC video (@ 3:00), on YouTube

Aug 13, 2014 KSDK-TV interview
KSDK-TV source, from NBC News First Hand video


Tiffany Mitchell

Aug 12, 2014 KMOV
KMOV source, on YouTube

Aug 13, 2014 CNN Tonight with Don Lemon
CNN video, complete interview on YouTube

Aug 13, 2014 CNN tonight with Don Lemon and Aliysn Camerota
CNN video

Aug 14, 2014 MSNBC The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnel
MSNBC video


Piaget Crenshaw

Aug 9, 2014 Fox 2 St. Louis
Fox 2 source (@ 1:20)

Aug 10, 2014 St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Quoted statements from Post-Dispatch article

Aug 11, 2014 MSNBC All In with Chris Hayes
MSNBC video (@ 2:30), on YouTube, transcript

Aug 13, 2014 CNN Tonight with Done Lemon and Aliysn Camerota.
CNN video (@ 1:55)


Witness Video from World Star Hip Hop

This original posting of this video appears to have been on World Star Hip Hop. There's no information about the name of the person in the video. He claims to be a neighborhood resident who witnessed the shooting. When I first heard this video, I dismissed it because of its seemingly exaggerated claims but following yesterday's release of information about the theft of cigarillos, he seems to have some actual first hand knowledge. Warning: graphic language!

World Star source, on YouTube


Witness Video

I didn't come across any information about the name of the source of this video or anyone who can be heard on it. The partial transcript that follows was generated by me. This is a video of the scene immediately following the shooting. The transcript that follows was generated by me. Warning: graphic language!

YouTube source

** Starting at 2:37 **
Man shouting: The police fired on that boy for no reason! He had his hands up. How he hit the ground and he still fired on him?

** Starting at 3:51 **
Videographer: They said he had his hands up and everything.

** Starting at 4:36 **
Person 1: They said he stood over him?
Videographer: Yea and shot him some more when he was on the ground. Yea, that's what they said. Shot him some more when he was on the ground.

** Starting at 5:03 **
Videographer: Said he had his hands up and everything, they still shot him. He fell on the ground and they still shot him some more.

** Starting at 6:19 **
Person 2: When I came back outside, all I seen was the police was at the truck right there. The dude was, I don't know what happened.
Person 3: So who headed him right there?
Person 2: That's what I'm saying.
Person 3: How did he get from there to here?
Person 2: 'Cause he ran. The police was still in the truck.
Person 3: They came this way?
Person 2: Naw, (unintelligible) the police still in the truck. He's like... I dunno what.
Person 3: He was running this way? Why his body come this way though?
Person 2: (unintelligible) in the truck. (unintelligible) He's like over the (unintelligible) right now. 'Cause when he ran, the police got out and ran after him and then the next thing I know, he's coming back toward the (truck?). The police had his gun drawn already. (unintelligible)
Person 3: Oh, the police officer?
Person 2: (unintelligible) the police kept (dumping at him?). I'm thinking the police missing him! Like, he was like (unintelligible)

** Starting at 8:18 **
Person 4: I heard like, I heard like eight shots. It was like four, and then I it was like four more. It was like pop-pop-pop-pop, stop for a minute, pop-pop-pop.
Person 2: (unintelligible) How many times you heard that? The police was like, at least 10 yards away from him and I'm thinking, the dude was still standing, I'm thinking that he's missing him. Then he kept coming towards him. (unintelligible)


"Josie"

Audio from The Dana Show on FM News Talk 97.1, Aug 15 , 2014. The caller identified only as "Josie," claims to be a close friend of Darren Wilson and his wife and that the account she is giving is based on information given to her by Mrs. Wilson who of course was given the account by her husband. It's hearsay twice over but pending a statement/testimony by Darren Wilson, it provides some contrast. Link from a post by LibertyGal last night.

YouTube source

I would caution people to be just as skeptical of the witnesses as you are of the cop. There are many a reason for that, and not one has anything to do with race.

Appreciate you taking the time to put this thread together OP.

originally posted by: Domo1
I would caution people to be just as skeptical of the witnesses as you are of the cop. There are many a reason for that, and not one has anything to do with race.

Appreciate you taking the time to put this thread together OP.

I also encourage people to be skeptical of everything — including witness accounts, statements from the FPD, unidentified persons claiming to be witnesses or friends of witnesses or those involved and of course, the speculations of infotainment hosts and their guests.

It's also useful to contrast not only the statements made by different people, but the statements made by the same individual at different points since the shooting.

EDIT:

And you're most welcome!

originally posted by: Domo1
I would caution people to be just as skeptical of the witnesses as you are of the cop. There are many a reason for that, and not one has anything to do with race.

The what does it have to do with? Why be more skeptical of these witnesses than any other?

The law revolves around witness testimony.

originally posted by: Domo1
I would caution people to be just as skeptical of the witnesses as you are of the cop. There are many a reason for that, and not one has anything to do with race.

Appreciate you taking the time to put this thread together OP.

We should be skeptical of everything

Are you a police officer or have any connections to the police?
I'm being skeptical of your post

a reply to: theantediluvian

Thanks for this!
The way the guy on Worldstar describes it is rather chilling if true. That he stood over him and then shot him some more. Of course everyone will just discredit that account but he does seem to know an awful lot about what happened.
Have you seen a report of him charging the police? Cause in all your accounts here, they all tell the same story but I keep getting told there is reports out there of someone saying they saw brown charge?

And I wonder how long till the "I can't even understand what half these people are saying" comment takes to show up?

a reply to: Cuervo

The law revolves around witness testimony.

Which is notoriously bad since most people aren't trained observers and get tunnel vision.

The reason I think we should be skeptical of witnesses is that they are no more credible than the cop.

I'm saying question everyone. Not don't question the cop or don't question white people in nice neighborhoods.

Many people have an axe to grind with the police. These witnesses may be seeing things differently than what actually happened after hearing non stop the guy was gunned down with his hands up. Sort of the reason police have to be careful about asking leading questions during an interview. Ask if the guy was wearing red pants, the witness will be like yeah. Ask what color pants the guy is wearing and the witness amy say blue. Look at the witness statements up there. Some people are saying Brown was on his knees begging for his life, others that he turned around and was gunned down.

We don't know what the witnesses were able to actually see, if the vehicle was blocking their view, if the windows were tinted, at what point in the altercation they started actually paying attention.

We also don't know if the cop decided to execute someone in the street and is trying to cover his ass, it was a series of tragic events/mistakes (my guess) or if the cop was 100% justified and telling the truth.

We don't know crap. All I'm saying is blindly trusting anyone in such a heated case where tensions and emotions are sky high is not a great idea.

Looks like a lot of 'someone said' in those lines.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: theantediluvian

Thanks for this!

YW!

The way the guy on Worldstar describes it is rather chilling if true. That he stood over him and then shot him some more. Of course everyone will just discredit that account but he does seem to know an awful lot about what happened.
Have you seen a report of him charging the police? Cause in all your accounts here, they all tell the same story but I keep getting told there is reports out there of someone saying they saw brown charge?

And I wonder how long till the "I can't even understand what half these people are saying" comment takes to show up?

Of everyone, in my opinion, Ms. Mitchell is the most likely to be objective as she wasn't acquainted with Michael Brown, his family, the police officer, etc and isn't a resident of the neighborhood (or the immediate area). She was there that day to pick up Ms. Crenshaw, who she described as her employee, for work.

Darren Williams account as told by both the FPD and "Josie," if she's deemed credible, both state that the cop was shoved back into his vehicle and that after he was shot the first time and ran 20-30 feet away (and was shot again most likely), he turned and rushed the cop. The one possible witness, overheard in the cellphone video on the street, is using a lot of pronouns and in a couple spots, his words are completely drowned out by others talking, but he seems to be either remarking that the cop was moving toward Michael Brown or that Michael Brown was moving back toward the vehicle.

a reply to: Domo1

There is a reason why we shouldn't doubt the witnesses as much as the cop. There are more than one witness and not all of them are going to be motivated to fabricating a story. Sure, some of them might embellish because they have a bone to pick with authority but it only takes one impartial witness to throw reasonable doubt into the mix. If no reasonable doubt exists among all the witnesses, their testimony seems far more reliable.

The cop on the other hand, if guilty, has 100% reason to lie.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Looks like a lot of 'someone said' in those lines.

Of the transcript? Yes, after the shout and before the long exchange, the person recording the video makes a series of statements which are clearly hearsay as he didn't see the incident. He does capture a conversation by a nearby person who is claiming to have witnessed the incident from the point of the first shot onward. Also, everything said by "Josie" is clearly hearsay.

The information is imperfect but it seems much more relevant than the opinions and interpretations of TV personalities and bloggers.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Ah I missed the "Josie" source,foot in mouth moment for me, thanks for pointing that back out to me.
That second hand account does paint a different picture. I wonder how many are willing to take that as a creditable account but then are willing to throw out DJ's first hand account cause of this relation to brown.

Waiting for someone to give their version under oath. That might make for a truthful statement. I imagine that won't be soon .

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: theantediluvian

Ah I missed the "Josie" source,foot in mouth moment for me, thanks for pointing that back out to me.
That second hand account does paint a different picture. I wonder how many are willing to take that as a creditable account but then are willing to throw out DJ's first hand account cause of this relation to brown.

I'm not putting a lot of stock in "Josie" because not only is everything she said purportedly information given to her by the wife of Darren Wilson (who is alleged to have be, in turn, repeating what her husband told her), but we can't verify her identity/relationship to the Wilsons. A very poor substitute, but in the absence of anything else, I felt it should be included.

At this point, I'm admittedly leaning toward an opinion that the shooting was not justified but it's all very tentative pending additional information. The next big development will be the autopsy report from the ME. Michael Brown's body has been released to his family so I would imagine this information will be forthcoming. The may be sitting on it until after the weekend.

This was very well done and hsd to be time consumming.

Why aren't there more people concerned about the underlying issue that needs to be changed so this stops happening?

a reply to: theantediluvian

well, the autopsy report will tell us if any of the witnesses are lieing.
The autopsy will tell us if he was shot in the back or not,if he wasn`t that will exclude all the witnesses who said he was shot in the back, because obviously they didn`t see what happened.
The autopsy will reveal the angle of the shots so we will know without a doubt whether he stood over the victim after he was down and fired more shots.If he didn`t stand over the victim and fire more shots when he was down, then we can exclude all the witnesses who said he did, because obviously they didn`t see what happened.

Interesting that "josie" said Brown kept coming toward the officer even after having been shot several times. A witness confirms that by saying he thought the shots were missing brown because brown didn`t go down even after several shots were fired at him.

This witness statement is interesting it confirms what "josie" said about brown running then turning around and running back towards the officer:

..'Cause when he ran, the police got out and ran after him and then the next thing I know, he's coming back toward the (truck?). The police had his gun drawn already

anyhow, the autopsy report will cull some of the liars from the herd.

EDIT: At about 7:20 "person 2" in the background says "the dude started running,kept coming toward the police"

near the beggining of the video you can hear a women saying she was in the shower when she heard the shots then later in the video you can hear her in the background yelling "they shot him for no reason" She didn`t see what happened but she`s stirring up the mob by spreading rumors as if they are fact.

a reply to: Tardacus

So if we are in the business of excluding all the testimony of people that were not there and are just repeating info, why does josie testimony mean anything? She is repeating what the wife of the officer told her...
She wasn't there and didn't see a thing.

I'm thinking that he's missing him. Then he kept coming towards him. (unintelligible)

And are you really able to tell who is he and who is him? Could it not be that is saying the cop is continuing to move towards brown?
Cause I hear right before that," the police kept coming at him" At like the 6:59-7:00 min mark.
And I don't have the greatest speakers on this laptop I use but I can't hear anything those guys are saying over that lady at the 7:20 mark

a reply to: theantediluvian

Hey, GREAT addition OP! Whether the statements are true or not? Those look like a great representation of what has been said and reported in keeping a running record of it all. So much is changing in this case, sometimes from day to day it seems, anything to keep record is good in my book.

a reply to: Sremmos80
right, josie isn`t going to be called as a witness she didnt see anything, but the people who claim that they saw what happened will be called as witnesses,so if they say that he was shot in the back but the autopsy shows he wasn`t then those witnesses will have their testimony and credibility drawn into question.
if they are mistaken ( lieing) about him being shot in the back then it`s very possible that they are mistaken about what else they think they saw.

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Sremmos80
right, josie isn`t going to be called as a witness she didnt see anything, but the people who claim that they saw what happened will be called as witnesses,so if they say that he was shot in the back but the autopsy shows he wasn`t then those witnesses will have their testimony and credibility drawn into question.
if they are mistaken ( lieing) about him being shot in the back then it`s very possible that they are mistaken about what else they think they saw.

The way the police react seem to prouve the witness right.

If the police man was injure badly, the police would have shown the image from the start.

But the police had nothing, just the "rob" video ( and they used it the day of the name of the police man was out xD lol, not hide PR control here )

Police cover their "ass" because they know they are in trouble and only a court-trial could save them.


But police should treat the police man like a criminal ( he's not under arrest already ), then the public would have fate back a little bit in their police force.
And police would not draw their gun easy if they know that killing = prison for them too.