I'm still trying to get my head and heart around the Grand Jury Decision in Ferguson that there is NO probable cause to indict Darren Walker on criminal charges.
* When Prosecutor McCullough states last night at great length, that there were conflicting eyewitness testimonies...wouldn't a jury accepting this great number of conflicting eyewitness testimony as a reason to pursue indictment and probable cause. McCullough spoke at length about how many eyewitnesses testimonies were found to be untrue compared with physical evidence. Since there is no cross-examination by the G.J. and all eyewitnesses were presented in front of the G.J.....who is McCullough to say that any eyewitness testimonies were not credible unless that's how the prosecutor presented it. I also noticed that in his speech last night he said how Michael Brown bull rushed Darren Wilson just prior to being shot dead. Although that is Wilson's testimony, there are conflicting testimony so how dare McCullough state publicly this one-sided description as if it were undisputed.
* So much was not mentioned by McCullough (how far was Michael Brown's body from Darren Wilson? What is the explanation and Wilson's defense for each of the 12 shots fired? etc). And so much was said about the case by McCullough that defended Wilson and denigrated any evidence/testimony to the contrary.
These were just some immediate thoughts - I'm sure a careful review of McCulloughs lengthy speech will uncover other biases.