CNN's Anderson Cooper Interviews Michael Brady, New Michael Brown Shooting Witness

originally posted by: abe froman
So he was moving toward the officer and his hands weren't up. Why is it that out of all these witnesses NO ONE saw whether or not Brown charged the officer? Witnesses before, witnesses after, but for some reason the 10 seconds in the middle was observed by no one... convenient.

but this contradicts the thug account and it comes out more than a week later so it is invalid.

You are mistaken. All of the previous public statements made directly by the eyewitness that I'm aware of, cover that critical point in the shooting. If you follow the link in my sig to the witness account thread I put up a few days ago, there are links to interviews given by Tiffany Mitchell and Piaget Crenshaw.

originally posted by: SirKonstantin
a reply to: UnBreakable



Thank you for the Information.

Unfortunately, the only eyewitnesses that have come forward so far are either proved lying (Johnson) or questionable coming out a week and a half later (Brady). Other witnesses are most likely intimidated by the "Snitches Get Stitches" slogan last week or the riots. The only two people who know what really happened are either dead (Brown) or in hiding for fear of their life (Wilson).

I find it strange but not outrageous that there is no video (phone) of the incident. Someone got a clear cut video when St. Louis cops shot that knife-wielding guy the other day. There seems to be video of everything nowadays. I wonder if there is a camera phone video that exists that backs the officer's account that someone from that community is afraid to show. Just sayin'.

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: abe froman

yeah, it reminds of the term "mission creep" that the military uses.
The Brown supporters hitched their wagons to a falling star from the get go.They slowly got deeper and deeper into defending him as each new revelation came out,now they are so deep into defending him that their egos won`t let them admit that they are wrong.
mission creep, starts out as good intentions then slowly descends into an indefensible quagmire.

So any witness that doesn't corroborate Darren Wilson's account is a misguided Brown supporter? That reminds me of confirmation bias.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Is that the same guy from the 'transcript-video', the one that allegedly corroborates the account given by Officer Wilson's friend Josie?

theconservativetreehouse.com... led-back-toward-police/

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: theantediluvian I watched the Tiffany Mitchell interview, she was obviously lying, how did she manage to see EVERYTHING while driving, having to find a place to park, and exiting her own vehicle some distance away? How was she able to observe Brown's hands clearly against the driver's side door from the opposite side of the vehicle? She stated there were no cars between her and the police cruiser yet we now know there was a white Lincoln there. If she was merely feet away as she claims why was she unable to hear any conversation between the two? Also note how she has a complete personality change in the middle of the interview... Hadn't seen the Crenshaw one, I'll check it out right now.




Ok went back and read Crenshaw's accounts. First she said he ran from the officer with his hands up, in a later account she says he ran, then turned around and put his hands up. She doesn't even give the same account twice. Do you have any reliable witnesses you'd like me to look at?

a reply to: theantediluvian

I was referring to the brown supporters on these forums,not witnesses which is why i didn`t use the word witnesses.
To address your comment about witnesses, any witness who doesn`t corroborate wilson`s testimony and has been proven to be a liar is most definately guilty of bias.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: SirKonstantin
a reply to: UnBreakable



Thank you for the Information.

Unfortunately, the only eyewitnesses that have come forward so far are either proved lying (Johnson) or questionable coming out a week and a half later (Brady). Other witnesses are most likely intimidated by the "Snitches Get Stitches" slogan last week or the riots. The only two people who know what really happened are either dead (Brown) or in hiding for fear of their life (Wilson).

So wait.

All witnesses that do not corroborate the 2nd hand hearsay account of an anonymous radio show caller are liars or questionable. Everyone who might tell the "truth" is intimidated. So basically you're saying that you won't accept the validity of any statement that doesn't agree with your opinion? What if it turns out that there aren't any witnesses that corroborate Darren Wilson's account?

Does that seem like something an objective person would do?

As I stated in the OP, statements that Michael Brady made to the grand jury were quoted in news articles in the last few days. He didn't just come forward weeks later.

a reply to: theantediluvian The original story that came out and enraged everyone has pretty much shown to be a lie told by a liar. I'm no fan of a police state or a militarized police force, but this wasn't the unprovoked execution of an innocent man with his hands up, begging not to be shot, that we were lead to believe.

We know for a FACT that we have been lied to about this case by Brown supporters. Wilson has yet to tell his side, but since I already know one side is lying I'll give the other the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry, maybe I didn't state it clearly enough. I'm not saying I know what the truth is. I'm only saying that the only witnesses so far can't be corroborated. The only solution, unlikely, and of course will never happen, would be to hook up Darren Wilson and the other witnesses to a polygraph. I'd just be interested to see the reults.

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: theantediluvian The original story that came out and enraged everyone has pretty much shown to be a lie told by a liar. I'm no fan of a police state or a militarized police force, but this wasn't the unprovoked execution of an innocent man with his hands up, begging not to be shot, that we were lead to believe.

We know for a FACT that we have been lied to about this case by Brown supporters. Wilson has yet to tell his side, but since I already know one side is lying I'll give the other the benefit of the doubt.

Some part of Darren Wilson's story have been told and I'm not talking about the "Josie" call.

As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, according to law enforcement officials.

This is apparent confirmation by the FPD that Darren Wilson fired at these men as they were fleeing. This does not match the "Josie" account. Does this mean that "Josie" is a liar?

According to his account to the Ferguson police, Officer Wilson said that Mr. Brown had lowered his arms and moved toward him, law enforcement officials said. Fearing that the teenager was going to attack him, the officer decided to use deadly force. Some witnesses have backed up that account. Others, however — including Mr. Johnson — have said that Mr. Brown did not move toward the officer before the final shots were fired.

Again. Here we now have a statement from the FPD that Darren Wilson had at some point raised his hands. This also contradicts the account given by "Josie" and tend to be consistent with statements given by people like Michael Brady.

NY Times source

a reply to: theantediluvian Thanks for confirming the Brown side keeps giving conflicting accounts and outright lies as testimony. My point that Wilson has not had a chance to tell his side of the story is still valid. When Wilson does get to speak then you can attack his story. Johnson says Brown didn't move toward Wilson, Brady says he did. You pick and choose what you like from multiple accounts that don't corroborate each other and cobble together the story you want, have fun with that, it's a great way to write fiction.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yes, according to this account, Brown at some point raised his hands. But it also says "Mr. Brown had lowered his arms and moved toward him".... "Fearing that the teenager was going to attack him, the officer decided to use deadly force". So the golden question appears to be what at what point did Brown raise his arms to surrender - before or after he supposedly moved toward the officer.

a reply to: abe froman

We know for a FACT that we have been lied to about this case by Brown supporters. Wilson has yet to tell his side, but since I already know one side is lying I'll give the other the benefit of the doubt.

I didn't realize all the witnesses, besides Dorian Johnson perhaps, would qualify as Brown supporters. What lies exactly have you been told ?

a reply to: Millers We could start with Brown being shot in the back and go from there, but since it seems you are just playing dumb as to avoid the truth i won't. Go back and read through the thread. I've already shown examples. Your post has only wasted space and added nothing to the topic, while having zero substance, trying to be provocative.
it is the Al Sharpton of posts.

The longer we get from the actual incident the more skeptical I get of "new" witnesses that come forward.

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: theantediluvian Thanks for confirming the Brown side keeps giving conflicting accounts and outright lies as testimony. My point that Wilson has not had a chance to tell his side of the story is still valid. When Wilson does get to speak then you can attack his story. Johnson says Brown didn't move toward Wilson, Brady says he did. You pick and choose what you like from multiple accounts that don't corroborate each other and cobble together the story you want, have fun with that, it's a great way to write fiction.

I have no interest in attacking his story. Darren Wilson should and will have a chance to tell his side of the story. Michael Brown is dead and he cannot tell his version of events. That leaves eyewitnesses, physical and other circumstantial evidence. If Darren Wilson was justified in his actions, punishing him would be a grave injustice. If Michael Brown was shot dead while he posed no credible threat to Darren Wilson and Darren Wilson goes unpunished, that would be a grave injustice.

I'm trying to remain as objective as possible because I don't like being made a fool of. Obviously I have an opinion, but I'm open to it being wrong.

a reply to: abe froman


Dude, you're assuming too much. You claim to know things for a fact nobody else is able to confirm at this point. I don't really want to know what's going on in your head, but please don't project your strange polarized version of reality on to me. If you don't want to give me a straight answer, say as much and leave it at that.

a reply to: theantediluvian I am with you, I have already begun thinking about the apologies I will have to make if this was a murder and not justified.
However the inconsistantcies and falsehoods from the "eyewitnesses" show obvious bias and many of the key components that enrages people in the beginning have been shown to simply not be true.
The rumors of Wilson's account fit with common sense and ring true. I have to stand up for the truth as I see it just as you do. If you don't stand for something you fall for anything.

I speak now not just for myself, but for others who have called me to say the things they are afraid to say themselves.

a reply to: Millers Did you not know that originally it was claimed that Brown was shot in the back and it has been proven that that was a lie? I gave you a straight answer, now you are just being obtuse. Do you have something to add? If not please, with all due respect

It took a while, but CNN finally found someone who is willing to tell a contradictory story so they can continue the 'bad cop' narrative.