It's well known that Eye witness testimony is the worse form of evidence there is. People corrupt their own memories via biases, talking with other people and watching TV. The biggest trouble with Witness 14's statement is that from turning and falling, he has Brown taking "Two or three steps" before moving "really slowly" towards Brown during the second volley of 4 shots. The physical, evidence says that Brown turned and moved 49 feet back towards Wilson. This just doesn't jive with what 14's Statement says.
14 also has Brown standing during the first volley of 6 shots and Brown being hit by 3 or 4 of them, but again, none of the bullets three bullets that hit Brown in the torso and head hit him when he was in an upright position, so this is impossible.
Next he changes his story to whether Brown was standing looking at Wilson (First Interview, and start of second) to his being bent over (later in second)when the second round of shots occur. The trouble here is that Brown can't have bent over from being shot 3-4 times as #14 claims, because none of the bullets hit him in the torso while he was upright. That is a major hole in #14's tale.
He also has Brown falling directly down, with his hands forwards, but the body clearly has the hands to his sides, not in front of him as would be the case if his hands were forward of his head, the interviewer in the second interview makes this point. 14's statements just do not match the physical evidence.
Also compare it with Witness 10 and the video that was posted earlier of Brown's body shortly after the shooting. A man can be heard describing what happened, and he states that "(Brown) run at the police" along with the contemporary diary entry of #40.
Witnesses that claim he was shot when running away have several problems. First, there are no shells between the car and the final position. Also all of the bullets in Wilson's gun have been accounted for. 2 at the car, 10 at the final position (6 + 4) and one was still in the gun. Add to that none of the shots were from back to the front. This means simply anyone claiming that Brown was shot running away is wrong.
Similarly we can know that when Brown was shot in the upper arm, he didn't have his hands up. We know this because the bullet wound was a through and through, from the front of the upper arm and out the back. If you put up your hands, your upper arm rotates. Had be been shot in the arm with his hands up, the wound would have been from the back of the arm to the front. We also know that the arm wasn't in front of him when it was hit because the wound then would have been in the lower arm and out the top.
We can also eliminate the whole "He was kneeling." For one thing, he moved 49 feet in 7 seconds, which is hard to do while kneeling, and secondly, while it is feasible that Wilson walked up and shot directly down into Brown as she knelt there, the evidence doesn't agree. The only close wound in the one to his hand, the rest are at distance, so for Wilson to have fired down at a distance, was for him to be standing 10 feet in the air above Brown, I think you'd agree this is unlikely.
This is the thing, we can't just read a witness statement and think that they could credible, we have to compare their claims with the physical evidence and see it matches. The majority of witness statements simply don't match, and when questioned on the stand we find out why. Many of them simply didn't actually see what they claimed too, they added to their story with what they believed happened, or what they heard others claim happened.
