Whose job is it to decide which witnesses have "changed their stories"?

[moondust]

Did they change their overall narratives or just the wording? Did they add or omit a minor detail or two that doesn't change the overall narrative but technically the story has changed?

Isn't that something for a jury to decide after thorough cross-examination on the witness stand?

Bob says a number of witnesses changed their stories. So I guess that's that.

[hollysmom]

1. from what he said

1. no one really saw the final shooting (but they saw other parts)
2. he claimed that Brown was never shot in the back (but we know he was shot at the back)
3. He claimed that his hands were in different descriptions some said fists, some said flat some said by his head, some said to the side - I guess someone did not just present the witnesses but did analysis on what they said or cross examined them.

I don't believe witnesses have to be 100% identical, but I do believe this prosecutor was holding them to that. And stories do change over time, you either remember more or forget a little. I call bullshit.

Then to say he will not prosecute them for perjury because they thought it was the truth - really rings the bullshit bell - If they were varying a little detail I would believe them more than if they read like from a script. I would like to hear from those witnesses now, I wonder if they were admonished to not say anything by the court. How lucky that Wilson got to testify last and could perfect his story.

[hack89]

3. I thought all three autopsies confirmed he was not shot in the back

perhaps I am misreading your post.

[hollysmom]

5. i meant that brown was shot at while he had his back turned.

if a bullet does not hit, it does not mean no one took aim.

and there was also the issue of his arm, when he changed his arm position, it turns the arm a little, the arm could be facing the back The family autopsy questioned that. Or I seem to remember people spending a lot of time on that, I didn't memorize it, just remember people saying where he was hit in the arm was a possible back shot.

It came into question because witnesses said he flinched while running away.

[Recursion]

4. If he was shot in the back all three autopsies are wrong

Just want to be clear about that.

[hollysmom]

6. I am just a poster here, and did not memorize everything about the case,

did not mean to sound like a know it all.

[Recursion]

7. Oh, I wasn't implying you were, and sorry if it came out that way

I just mean that AFAIK every impact was to the front, and all the grand jury witnesses said the second and third set of shots came after Brown had turned around. (I've only skimmed, but all the shooting witnesses agree on that: 2 shots in the car, Brown runs, Brown turns, more shots, Brown advances, more shots).

[Lee-Lee]

2. All the statements are in the release- read for yourself

And also read the forensic evidence and judge the various statements against the science.

That is how you cut through contradictory witness accounts and get to the closest account of the truth possible.

What angle does the autopsy report say the bullets entered the body? Does that jive with accounts he was facing/running toward Wilson standing, or accounts Brown was on his knees and Wilson stood over him and shot him? That is one example- you have to do that with every witness and every detail to form an informed opinion.

[Avalux]

8. All those things you mention are precisely WHY there should have been a trial.

But it seems the grand jury threw out all witness accounts, except for the one that matched Wilson's story, and decided a trial wasn't needed. Bob did a good job of making the audience think none of the other witnesses mattered at all. Tragic.