thank you for watching "the factor" tonight. ms. megyn is next with the decision. i'm bill o'reilly. please always remember the spin stops here cause we're definitely looking out for you. breaking tonight, an announcement is imminent in the officer-involved deadly shooting in ferguson, missouri that grabbed international headlines and led todays of riots and controversy. welcome to "the kelly file" everyone. i'm megyn kelly. at any moment now we expect to learn if officer darren wilson will be indicted for shooting and killing 18-year-old michael brown. that verdict set to be released at 8:00 p.m. central time, 9:00 p.m. eastern. we're there right now. the racially charged case sparked violent protests over the summer. and already tonight crowds are gathering in ferguson waiting to hear what the grand jury has decided. we will bring you that announcement just as soon as it happens. you can see we are live inside

the courtroom. you will not miss a moment. earlier tonight we heard directly from local and state leaders all calling for calm no matter the outcome. >> our shared hope and expectation is that regardless of the decision, people on all sides show tolerance, mutual respect and restraint. >> our immediate priority is to ensure that people are safe and able to voice their concerns in an orderly fashion. >> at this hour we are hearing reports that officer wilson has not been contacted by the prosecutor's office informing him of an indictment. reports suggesting that could mean he's expecting good news as he apparently is under the impression that they would have called him to allow him to turn himself in. however, he may have been wrong about that. and we have not confirmed those

reports. i want to tell you what we're looking at here on screen left. this is the inside of the courtroom where we expect the results to be announced momentarily. we expect the county prosecutor to announce the results to announce whether an indictment is being returned or one is not. the grand jurors will not be in this room. i want to correct myself on something i said on o'reilly earlier is that it was possible for the grand jurors to speak. i'm told now under missouri state law they are not allowed to speak. so we don't expect the grand jurors to make any statement during or after this presentation. however, we're being told not only will the county prosecutor make the announcement but that he will accept questions from the media over who's shoulders we are looking right now including our own produce er wh is inside the courtroom and will be asking questions as well. in fact, you can see bottom left in the pink shirt. we've got a jam packed lineup for you tonight including judge alex with analysis on the grand

jury, mike tobin is on the ground in ferguson. and forensic pathologist dr. michael baden who performed an autopsy on michael brown at the request of his parents. we will wait for host of "judge alex" and retired circuit court judge. it's not really a verdict but more a decision whether this case will see a real jury or not. and how will it be announced, judge? who should we expect to hear? >> i think the prosecutor's going to be very much straight to the point. he's going to come forward saying whether or not they've chosen to indict or not to indict. >> what are the catch words though? >> the catch words typically are that the grand jury has come back with a true bill or come back with no true bill. they may say it in the terms of indictment so the public understands it clearly. those are the legal terms for it. i understand your point about the speculation as to whether or not they would come back with an indictment since the officer

hasn't been asked to come in. if you're a betting man, that would give you a direction -- if you were a betting woman, i should say, that would give you a direction to go based on those facts and i tend to agree with that. but we're so close to a decision right now that i don't think it's worth speculating. we're going to know the answer in just a few minutes. >> agreed. that's the "new york times" that put that out there claiming they'd spoken with contacts of officer wilson's. we have not yet done that but wanted to acknowledge that that reporting is out there. it is not our own nor have we confirmed it. but we will know momentarily whether officer wilson will be indicted. if he is indicted, judge, what would happen next? >> well, the next thing that would happen is he would have to surrender himself. they would probably issue what's called a sealed indictment in most places, not disclosing the charges. he would have to surrender or be taken into custody. typically in a situation where they fear the individual's going to flee they might have other officers, state officers or federal officers watching his location to take him into custody if he doesn't just voluntarily surrender. but as a courtesy they would

offer his lawyer the opportunity to bring him in and probably wouldn't expect he'd flee anywhere. then he'd be taken into custody, fingerprinted, photographed and then appear in front of a judge probably first thing in the morning on the question of he was entitled to bail and if so what amount. >> now, as we're looking at this courtroom, typically obviously cases don't usually grand jury proceedings don't usually get this much attention. there's almost never a prosecutor standing in a courtroom announcing what the grand jury has decided. how unusual is this? have you ever seen this before? >> well, when you have cases of this magnitude, you know. remember, miami, where i'm from we had the mcduffy riots, all involving white male officers and black male victims or hispanic victim. when you have that kind of pressure from the public and that kind of concern, then the prosecutor goes the extra mile. those cases tend to take on a life of their own as we see. but you're absolutely right,

megyn. this is a case involving a shooting that was submitted to the grand jury for a decision. it happens all the time. just gets more attention in cases like this where there's a racial concern. >> he has said -- we've gotten conflicting reports today about what this prosecutor will or will not release. we were told that if there's an indictment they'll release the indictment and that's it. but if there's no indictment, earlier the prosecutor has said i will release testimonials and other evidence -- i know i understand he'd have to redact some of those to protect the identity of the witnesses and so on, but he said he would release evidence that was presented. then there was a question about whether he was allowed to do that. we had read that the law there in missouri, the sunshine law, allows him to do it. and then there was a question about whether he'd have to run it by the judge. and we were told the judge has not yet signed off on it. how unusual would it be for a prosecutor to release the evidence presented to a grand jury in a case in which no true bill, meaning no indictment, was returned? >> well, i've never heard of it.

let's put it that way. but as you know we have 50 states with 50 different laws. i'd be surprised that their sunshine law allows for that because there specifically is a law in confidentiality of the grand jury, the testimony presented to the grand jury and the grand jurors identity. but, you know, he would probably know that better than i would, i suppose. what i worry about is it's not just redacting the names, because a lot of witnesses are called before the grand jury and they are not just told, they are promised confidentiality. one of the good things about that is you get witnesses who come forward who otherwise might not have come forward. as we heard earlier on there were these rumors about leaks from the grand jury testimony that suggested that six or seven african-american witnesses came forward and gave a version that completely supported the officer's testimony. we don't know if that's true or not, but allegedly those confidential and secret. and they did not feel safe coming forward publicly like  to the officer od5felt.

o cf1 o prosecutor's not going to release the information, itñy+ not be enough to redact the witnesses. you know, if i'm a witne2ñ  an i'm saying, listen, from my on the second floor across the street from the police car and i could see moving in this direction, it really wouldn't take a genius t figure out who that witness is. so i'm a little concerned about that, but i understand the need community's concern at rest that >> i want to tell our viewers we're getting an /cupdate from e courtroom.[ray/t&háhp &hc%  only the agt prosecutor robert mczmpk÷cullou will speak. the announcement iswn w,z take questions from the media for about 20 minutes, which is just(gxó extraordinary which is just(gxó extraordinary quite an actually hear what happenedq a what went into the result we're about to hear. let's possibility, the very real possibility given all the press leaks and other leaks we've had

moment that officer darren0]@q wilsonká@uw$,gñ will not beílhg this grand jury. this grand jury. this prosecutor wasúwqáp[? for not he grand 5wq jurors and arguing for an indictment. hebab2r presented the evidence reportedly put on alle,u÷ the ' relevant r?i evidence. but he then didn't turn to the #tr'dictment on manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, he just presented them with those optionsq40 v an them decide. he was criticized saying advocating for one of those charges. is that true? and is it controversial the way he did it? >> i suspect that it is true. that normally a prosecutor doesn't take a case in front of the grand jury that the prosecutor does not expect and want to prosecute. and if you want to prosecute a case, you fight forcefully for that indictment. but i don't want to put myself in his mind. what comes to mind in my mind is the public knows of the witnesses that have come out publicly.

what i can tell you from experience in cities that have had riots and miami's scenario in particular, when you have a street scene like this where there's a lot of tension, police officers shot a black male, a lot of times you get witnesses who jump onto other witnesses story. one witness says i saw this and six other people say, yes, he did this. he shot him in the back. and then of course evidence comes out and says that's not the case. you know, the case as i mentioned takes a life of its own and testimony can change and people can come out and say different things that when you finally look at the forensic evidence, when the prosecutor finally gets forensic evidence and gets other witnesses who come forward and their testimony matches the evidence that they have, the prosecutor has a tough decision to make. one is to say i'm not going to file charges. and as you remember, megyn, this prosecutor there was a big challenge to him being appointed because his father was killed by an african-american male. >> right. >> a lot of members of the community said he's not going to be fair, he's not going to be fair. so i'm totally speculating here.

let me say that. but if i'm the prosecutor and the evidence that's presented to me shows me that it's not consistent with what was said in the media but it's more consistent with the officer's version, in order to avoid the appearance that i am just tubing the case, i might impanel a grand jury and say i'm going to show you everything. not just the witnesses that if i wanted to take this guy to the mat i would show you, but the witnesses that he probably would present and put everything on the table and let them make a decision. that's the only thing that comes to mind. other than that i would expect the prosecutor to fight forcefully for the indictment he seeks. >> judge alex, standby. i want to bring in arthur adala tried as a prosecutor and defense attorney. your thoughts on how unusual this prosecutor did not go in and argue for manslaughter, for murder such as presented the jury with the pa na pli --

>> they're not allowed to make a closing argument. you're allowed especially in a presentation like this that took a very long time, at the end you're allow today say here's the evidence that you heard as i recall it. but it's your recollection that controls. and then you tell them what the evidence is. then you recite the different laws. if you find by a preponderance of the evidence that on this date that at this time he did commit the act of involuntary manslaughter, you can return a count, an indictment count of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree. >> and then how do they vote on that? then he sends them -- i mean, how does the procedure work where they sit amongst themselves and decide? >> well, quite frankly i don't know exactly only because i've never been a grand jury. everyone leaves the room. there's no stenographer, there's no court officer, there's no prosecutor. it's just the citizens who have been chosen on that grand jury who sit there. there is a foreperson just like in a regular grand jury who's just supposed to like keep a

count. and then they decide amongst themselves -- they have to be -- >> standby. i want to tell the viewers we just got the two-minute warning. we'll be getting the verdict within the next two minutes. the media's present in the courtroom. the prosecutor will come in and we expect him to make the announcement one way or the other as you can see massive crowds now gathering outside of the ferguson, missouri courthouse. and we are just getting news in that there are already protests emerging in various cities around the country. the one highlighted here is chicago. we will get video of that for you. we have been told by police departments and other cities that they have been placed on alert as well prior to this verdict preparing for protests perhaps. no one knowing for sure what the result is, but preparing for the worst, hoping for the best as they say. arthur, so has to be nine of the 12 agree. >> correct. >> will we find out what the breakdown was? >> i don't think you will. and i don't think you should. as you said accurately earlier,

it is a misdemeanor for the grand jurors to speak. if you want to be realistic, a misdemeanor, punishment is up to a year in prison. if some agency -- news agency's offering someone $500,000 to tell their story, somebody might decide, you know what, i'll roll the dice and the judge isn't going to put me in jail and i'll take half a million dollars and tell my story. the one last thing, megyn, there is an option in certain jurisdiction ifs there's not a true bill, a grand jury can issue a report. and the grand jurors themselves can tell a little story on paper and say this is what we found -- excuse me. this is what we heard. these were the witnesses. this is what they told us. and this is why we did not return a true bill. >> but what about the prosecutor? he's going to take 20 minutes of questions. is he going to tell us what he understands the rationale to be? what's he at liberty to tell us? >> well, it's two different things, if there's a true bill, if there's not a true bill.

>> if there's not one, what would he say? >> he would tell you the witnesses he put before the jury as long as he's confident he's not compromising anybody's safety and what you're reporting right now about all these people protesting, if i'm the prosecutor, i am going to be very hesitant before i put anyone's name out there. i may say there was a witness who was standing 25 feet away and this witness said x. and there was a witness who was 20 feet away and they said y. but i am going to make sure i do not put anybody's life at jeopardy in this type of a heated confrontation that's taking place in the streets. >> standby, arthur. the prosecutor is coming into the courtroom now. let's watch and listen. >> evening. thanks for your patience. little late getting up here. i have a statement at the very beginning here and then we'll be happy to answer some questions when we're finished with that.

first and foremost, i'd like to again extend my deepest sympathies to the family of michael brown. i've said in the past i know that regardless of the circumstances here they lost a loved one to violence. and i know that the pain that accompanies such a loss knows no bounds. on august 9th michael brown was shot and killed by police officer darren wilson. within minutes various accounts of the incident began appearing on social media. accounts filled with speculation and little if any solid, accurate information. almost immediately neighbors began gathering and anger began growing because of the various descriptions of what had happened and because of the underlying tension between the police department and the significant part of the neighborhood. the st. louis county police conducted an extensive investigation at the crime scene. at times under very trying circumstances, interrupted at least once by random gunfire. beginning that day and continuing for the next three months along with -- they along

with the agents of the federal bureau of investigation at the direction of attorney general eric holder located numerous individuals and gathered additional evidence and information. fully aware of the unfounded but growing concern in some parts of our community that the investigation and review of this tragic death might not be full and fair, i decided immediately that all of the physical evidence gathered, all people claiming to have witnessed any part or all of the shooting and any and all other related matters would be presented to the grand jury. grand jury of 12 members of this community selected by a judge in may of this yearlong before this shooting occurred. i would like to briefly expand upon the unprecedented cooperation between the local and federal authorities. when attorney general holder first announced the federal investigation just days after the shooting, he pledged that federal investigators would be working with local authorities as closely as possible at every

step of the way and would follow the facts wherever they may take us. as general holder and i both pledge, our separate investigations follow that trail of facts with no preconceived notion of where that jury would take us. our only goal was that our investigation would be thorough and complete to give the grand jury, the department of justice and ultimately the public all available evidence to make an informed decision. all evidence obtained by federal authorities was immediately shared with st. louis county investigators. likewise all evidence gathered by st. louis county police was immediately shared with the federal investigators. additionally the department of justice conducted its own examination of all the physical evidence and performed its own autopsy. another autopsy was performed at the request of the brown family. just as importantly all testimony before the st. louis county grand jury was

department of justice.÷/(rx so although the investigations are separate, both the local and federal government have all of the same information and evidence. to the grand jury in st. louis county has been completed. the most÷2!w significant challe encountered in this 24-hbu%@:vujñi against the physical evidence. many witnesses to the shooting of michael brown made statementf

statements that made and also conflicting with the physical evidence. the physical evidence. as an example, before thesñ results of the private autopsy were released, witnesses on social media during interviews with the mediayaa(v and even=pi questioning by law enforcementçy saw officer wilson stand over michael brown and fire many rounds into his back. others claimx7g that officer win mr. brown was running away.>(?¤ñ however, once the autopsy findings were released showing that michael brown had not sustained any wound to the back of his witnesses made suché nm a claim. and several :hdh455ujuíztx adju their stories in subsequent áip r(t&háhp &hc% some even admitted that they&]p" not witness the event ñu"y alhrt in thehñqñkujtjjt orec others -- or had assumedpftt(q happened.

fortunately for the integrity of our investigation, almost all initial interviews including those of officer wilson were recorded. the statement and the testimony of most of the witnesses were presented to the grand jury releasedñ media and before m published ñ therefore prior to the time of release of the -- and what followed in the to have already assessed d5h/q credibility of the witnessesç5" statements and testimony remained consisteld throughout x evidence in this case.[ my two assistants began presenting evidence to the griì% the jurors gave us a schedule of when they could meet.-y

specific witnesses, requesting specific information and asking for certain physical evidence. they met on 25 separate days in the last three months, heard more than 70 hours of testimony from about 60 witnesses and reviewed hours and hours of recordings of media and law enforcement interviews by many of the witnesses who testified. they heard from three medical examiners and experts on blood, dna, toxicology, firearms and drug analysis. they examined hundreds of photographs, some of which they asked be taken.

they examined various pieces of physical evidence. they were instructed on the law and presented with five indictments ranging from murder in the first degree to involuntary manslaughter. their burden was to determine based upon all of the evidence if probable cause exists to believe that a crime was commit and had that darren wilson is the person who committed that crime. there is no question of course that darren wilson caused the death of michael brown by shooting him. but the inquiry does not end there. the law authorizes a law enforcement officer use deadly force in certain situations. the law also allows all people to use deadly force to defend themselves in certain situations. so the grand jury considered whether wilson was the initial aggressor, in this case, or whether there was probable cause to believe that darren wilson was authorized as a law enforcement officer to use deadly force in this situation, or if he acted in self-defense. i detail this for two reasons.

first, so that everyone will know that as promised by me and attorney general holder there was a full investigation and presentation of all evidence and appropriate instruction of law to the jury -- to the grand jury. second, as a caution to those in and out of the media who will pounce on a single sentence or a single witness and decide what should have happened in this case based on that tiny bit of information. the duty of the grand jury is separate fact from fiction. after a full and impartial and critical examination of all the evidence in the law and decide if that evidence supported the filing of any criminal charges against darren wilson, they accepted and completed this monumental responsibility on a conscientious and expeditious manner. it is important to note here and say again that they are the only people, the only people, who have heard and examined every witness and every piece of

evidence. they discussed and debated the evidence among themselves before arriving at their collective decision. after their exhaustive review of the evidence, the grand jury deliberated over two days making their final decision. they determined that no probable cause exists to file any charge against officer wilson and returned a no true bill on each of the five indictments. the physical and scientific evidence examined by the grand jury combined with the witness statements supported and substantiated by that physical evidence tells the accurate and tragic story of what happened. a very general synopsis of the testimony and physical evidence presented to the grand jury follows. please note that as i have promised, the evidence presented to the grand jury with some exceptions and the testimony of the witnesses called to the grand jury will be released at the conclusion of this statement. at approximately 11:45 a.m. on

saturday the 9th of august, ferguson police officer darren wilson was dispatched to the apartment complex for an emergency involving a 2-month-old infant having trouble breathing. at approximately 11:53 while still at the call wilson heard a radio broadcast for a stealing in progress at a market on west florison. the broadcast also included a brief description of the suspect, a black male wearing a white t-shirt who took a box of swisher cigars. other officers were dispatched to that store. officer wilson remained with the mother and the infant until ems arrived to transport them to the hospital. officer wilson left the complex in his ferguson police vehicle, a chevy tahoe suv, and drove west on canfield towards west florison. in the additional description the stealing suspect was broadcast about that time wearing red hat, yellow socks, khaki shorts and he was with

another male. as officer wilson was attending to his emergency call, michael brown and a companion were in the local convenience store on west florison. michael brown's activity in that story was recorded by the store's security cameras. video often played following its release in august by the ferguson police department shows michael brown grabbing a handful of cigarillos and heading for the exit without paying. someone inside the store called police. after crossing west florison, the two walked east. mr. brown directly behind his companion. as officer wilson continued west on canfield, he encountered michael brown and his companion still walking in the middle of the street. as wilson slowed or stopped as he reached mr. brown, he told them to move to the sidewalk. words were exchanged and they continued walking down the middle of the street. as they passed, wilson observed

that michael brown had cigarillos in his hand and wearing a red hat and yellow socks. at approximately 12:02 p.m. wilson radioed that he had two individuals on canfield and needed assistance. officer wilson backed his vehicle at an angle blocking their path and blocking the flow of traffic in both directions. several cars approached from both east and west but were unable to pass the police vehicle. an altercation took place at the car with officer wilson seated inside the vehicle and mr. brown standing at the driver's window. during the altercation two shots were fired by officer wilson while still inside the vehicle. mr. brown ran east on canfield, and officer wilson gave chase. near the corner of canfield and copper creek mr. brown stopped and turned back towards officer wilson. officer wilson also stopped. as michael brown moved toward officer wilson, several more

shots were fired by the officer. michael brown was fatally wounded. within seconds of the final shot the assist car arrived. less than 90 seconds passed between officer wilson's first contact with michael brown and his congressman mpanion and thef that assist car. during the investigation many eyewitnesses were interviewed by various media outlets. several others chose not to talk to the media but contacted law enforcement directly. witnesses were interviewed by local and federal law enforcement, sometimes together, sometimes separately. all statements were provided to the other party. all previous statements of witnesses who testified before the grand jury were also presented to the grand jury whether they were media interviews or whether they were interviews by the fbi or by the county police department. the statements of all witnesses, civilian, law enforcement and experts were challenged of

course by other law enforcement, by the prosecutors and by the grand jurors themselves. a common and highly effective method of challenging a statement is to compare it to the previous statements of the witness for consistency and to compare it with the physical evidence. physical evidence does not change because of public pressure or personal agenda. physical evidence does not look away as events unfold. nor does it blackout or add to memory. physical evidence remains constant. and as such is a solid foundation upon which cases are built. when statements changed, witnesses were confronted with the inconsistencies, and conflicts between their statements and the physical evidence. some witnesses admitted they didn't actually see the shooting or only saw part of the shooting or only repeating what they had heard on the street. some others adjusted parts of their statements to fit the facts. others stood by original statements even though their statements were completely

discredited by the physical evidence. several witnesses described seeing an altercation in the car between mr. brown and officer wilson. it was described as tussling, wrestling, tug of war or just some movement. several other witnesses described mr. brown as punching officer wilson while mr. brown was partially inside the vehicle. many of the witnesses said they heard a gunshot while mr. brown was still partially inside the vehicle. at least one witness said that no part of mr. brown was ever inside the vehicle and that the shot was fired through an open window while mr. brown was standing outside. the vehicle and officer wilson's clothing and equipment were examined by various technicians and scientists. mr. brown's blood and/or dna were located on the outside of the driver's door. his blood and dna were also found on the outside of the left rear passenger door of the police vehicle. mr. brown's blood or dna was

found on the inside of the driver's door, the upper left thigh of officer wilson's pant leg, the front collar of officer wilson's shirt and on officer wilson's weapon. additionally a bullet fired from officer wilson's weapon was located inside the driver's door. the shot was fired from inside the vehicle striking the door in a downward angle at the armrest. the second bullet was not recovered. regarding the gunshot wounds -- wound to mr. brown, it should be noted that the three separate autopsies were conducted. one by st. louis county medical examiner's office, one by a private pathologist, and one by the department of defense armed forces medical examiner. the results of all three autopsies are consistent with one another in all significant respects. mr. brown had a gunshot graze wound to the right thumb. the path of that bullet is away

from the tip of the hand. soot consistent with a close-up -- close-range gunshot is present inside that wound. officer wilson also had a medical examination which indicated some swelling and redness to his face. almost all witnesses stated that after they heard the shot fired while mr. brown was at the car, he hesitated and then ran east on canfield. most stated almost immediately officer wilson got out of his vehicle and chased after him. some witnesses stated wilson fired at mr. brown as he chased after him striking him. at least one witness saying one of those shots struck mr. brown. others stated he did not fire until mr. brown turned and came back toward the -- toward officer wilson. at least one witness stated that as officer wilson got out of his vehicle, he shot mr. brown multiple times as mr. brown stood next to the vehicle. yet another witness stated that

officer wilson stuck his gun out the window and fired at mr. brown as mr. brown was running. one witness stated there were actually two police vehicles and four officers present but only one officer fired a weapon. most witnesses agreed that near the corner of canfield and copper creek mr. brown stopped and turned around facing officer wilson. some say mr. brown did not move toward officer wilson at all but was shot multiple times as he stood near the corner with his hands raised. in subsequent interviews with law enforcement or their testimony before the grand jury, many of the same witnesses acknowledged that they didn't actually see the shooting. some were running for cover. some were relating what they heard from others. or as i said, what they assumed happened in that case. some other witnesses maintained their original statement that mr. brown had his hands in the air and was not moving toward the officer when he was shot.

others said that he was shot -- excuse me. several witnesses stated that mr. brown did not raise his hands at all or that he raised them briefly and then dropped them and turned toward officer wilson who then fired several rounds. other witnesses stated mr. brown stopped for a very brief period then moved toward officer wilson again. one described his movement toward officer wilson as a full charge. according to some witnesses officer wilson stopped firing when mr. brown stopped moving toward him and resumed firing when mr. brown started moving toward him again. these witnesses did not make any statements to the media. the description of how mr. brown's hands -- raised his hands or the position of his hands is not consistent among the witnesses. some described his hands as being out to his side. some said in front of him with his palms up. others said his hands were raised near his head or were by

his shoulders. still others said they were in front of his chest or down by his stomach. others described his hands as being in a running position or in fists. there are also various witness statements regarding mr. brown's movement after he stopped and turned back toward officer wilson. several witnesses said mr. brown never moved toward officer wilson and was shot where he stood at the corner. most -- most said that the shots were fired as he moved toward wilson. mr. brown's movements were described as i said more of a walking, moving fast, stumbling or full charge. like other aspects of this case the varying descriptions were sometimes provided by the same witnesses in subsequent statements or testimony. the entire area was processed by the st. louis county crime scene unit. a total of 12 rounds were fired by officer wilson. two shots at the car, ten more shots farther east on canfield.

mr. brown sustained a graze wound to his thumb while standing next to the vehicle. he sustained six or seven more gunshot wounds depending upon whether one of the shots was an entry or re-entry wound. mr. brown sustained a second graze wound -- another graze wound to his right biceps. upper arm, lateral right chest, upper right chest, forehead and top of the head. the top of the head, forehead and perhaps the upper right chest were consistent with his body being bent forward at the waist. except for the first and last wounds, the medical examiners are unable to determine a order of the shots. the graze wound to the thumb sustained at the vehicle is likely the first wound. it was the only close-range shot. the shot to the top of the head was most likely the last.

it would have rendered him immediately unconscious and incapacitated. mr. brown's body was located approximately 153 feet east of officer wilson's car. mr. brown's blood was located approximately 25 feet farther east past his body. nearby tenant during a video chat inadvertently captured the final ten shots on tape. there was a string of several shots followed by a brief pause followed by another string of several shots. as i stated earlier,ed evidence and the testimony will be released following this statement. i'm ever mindful that this decision will not be accepted by some. and may cause disappointment for others. but all decisions in the criminal justice system must be determined by the physical and

scientific evidence and the credible testimony corroborated by that evidence. not in response to public outcry. decisions on a matter as serious as charging an individual with a crime simply cannot be decided on anything less than a complete critical examination of all available evidence. anything less is not justice. it's my sworn duty and that of the grand jury is to seek justice and not simply obtain an indictment or conviction. i do want to say during this extremely tense and painful time that we have, the citizens of this community should be and i know are very mindful of the fact that the whole world is watching and watching how we respond and how we react. and i would urge each and every one of them that with the loss that was suffered by the brown family, no young man should ever die. this is a loss of a life. and it's a tragic loss regardless of the circumstances. but it's opened old wounds.

and it's given us an opportunity now to address those wounds as opposed to in the past where they just fade away. for how many years have we been talking about the issues that lead to incidents like this and yet after a period of time it just sort of fades away. i urge everybody who's engaged in the conversation, who's engaged in the demonstrations to keep that going, to stay with that, not to let that go. and to do it in a constructive way, a way that we can profit from this, a way that we can benefit from this by changing the structure, by changing some of the issues, by solving some of the issues that lead to these sorts of things. i join with michael brown's family and with the clergy and with anyone else and everyone else, the naacp and the -- excuse me, the urban league and every government official and every private citizen that you've heard in urging everyone to continue the demonstrations,

continue the discussion, address the problems. but do so in a constructive way and not in a destructive way. i have time for a few questions now. i'll just kind of start over here. yes, sir? gentleman in the black sweater. >> -- whether the grand jury made this decision unanimously? and can you tell us whether you presented any charges, recommended any charges to be brought by this grand jury? >> to the first question as to whether the vote -- the grand jury by statute is not allowed, nor am i or anyone else allowed to ask or to discuss the vote or the deliberations themselves. the grand jury is a very secret process. and it should be in order to protect that secrecy, to protect the witnesses so people can come out and talk about and speak freely in there.

jury deliberations in a grand jury whether or a trial jury, they're not recorded. in a trial of course they're unanimous. but by statute the grand jury is not allowed nor is anyone allowed to ask what the verdict -- i'm sorry, what the vote was nor are they allowed to or anyone allow today ask what the discussion was, the opinions expressed by the other grand jurors. i didn't present -- no. my two assistants did all of the presentation in the grand jury. we prepared as legal advisers of course as we do in every case potential charges for that. and presented -- in this case we presented five charges, five indict yes, sir. >> i heard you describe problematic witness statements, do any of you go after perjury charges? >> no, i think there are a number of witnesses in all honesty truly believe what they said. and the ones who were consistent throughout even in the face of

their testimony being in conflict with the physical evidence that was there, i think they truly believe that that's what they saw. but they didn't. no, some of the others, yes, we're making it up but they all pretty much acknowledge that they saw parts and made up other things. yes, ma'am? >> bob, there have been many that have been critical of this process calling it a secret trial. do you regret taking this to the grand jury? do you wish there'd been a coroner's jury? some other form for presenting this evidence? >> no, not at all. i certainly don't regret taking this. i think it was a good decision to take this to the grand jury. you know, we presented to this grand jury as i detailed in here all the evidence that there possibly could be all of which will be available -- all of which will be available and available as we finish this tonight. so everyone will be able to examine that same evidence and

come to their own conclusion. that's the only thing i urge. i know people aren't going to go home and read everything that was on there and make a decision based on that. but you need to keep in mind that these grand jurors poured their hearts and souls into this process. their term was scheduled to end in early september and they gave up their lives, they put their lives on hold, they put their families on hold, they put everything on hold so that they could come in and do their civic duty. and it was a very emotional process for them. i met with them before any evidence started to tell them what the process was going to be. and i met with them today after their decision. and i can tell you just how emotional and how draining it was for each and every one of them. so to suggest anywhere anyone suggesting that somehow, you know -- it's just not a full and fair process, is just unfair to these people. they poured their hearts and souls into this.

yes, ma'am. right next to you after that. >> i'll hand it right over, i promise. can you tell us anything more about the grand jury? we've heard just some very basic demographics. mainly just race and sex. can you tell us anything more, basic ages, perhaps which way -- >> i really can't. that was the information that the judge released and allowed to be released on the demographics or the makeup of the grand jury. what i can tell you and not speaking too far out of line is that, you know, when a judge -- any judge, picks a grand jury, they're looking for a cross section of st. louis county. and i will say that almost any demographic category you can come up with is going to be represented on that grand jury. various ages, income, where they live, how they live, retired, not retired, still working, blue collar, professional. almost anything you can think is going to be on that grand jury. and they tend to be that way

across the spectrum. yes, ma'am. >> were there any african-american witnesses who testified that michael brown was coming towards the officer when brown was shot? >> yes. all the -- the ones that i mentioned specifically about -- the ones i mentioned specifically were all african-americans. the one who indicated that he came at him in a full charge and that as officer wilson fired shots at him, mr. brown stopped and officer wilson stopped shooting. and as mr. brown started charging at him again, those are his words, his testimony, mr. wilson started shooting again. so the others who had very consistent stories, not just with each other -- not just their stories or their testimony throughout but they were consistent with the others -- several others, they're all african-american. yes, sir. >> i wonder if you can tell us a little bit about officer wilson's testimony and perhaps

his status tonight. >> i have no idea what his status is. but his testimony was, again, it's in the packet that will be released. but his testimony -- these are questions a lot asked by the grand jurors as questioning him and challenging him on why he didn't use lesser force, why he didn't run away, i'll say he did testify of course that he was sitting in the car and was punched by mr. brown. i think all that information from his version is out there. i specifically didn't do that in any case the target or the suspect is -- has the most interest in the case. so we don't put a whole lot of stock -- we'd love to hear from them, but don't put a whole lot of stock or can't rely solely on that testimony. yes, sir.

blue shirt. >> you mentioned there's video of the final ten shots. will that be released with the rest of the evidence tonight? >> i assume that microphone is going somewhere -- there's not video. there's audio. he was on a video chat in the background. yes, that should be in the packet. if not we will get the audio out. yes, sir. kevin. >> i want to ask you a question, imagine what the people who are protesting tonight might say, look, this jury had nine whites on it and three blacks say you have a reputation of right or wrong of being pro-police, what do you say to somebody who might be out there who thinks it wasn't justice? how do you boil this down? >> it's hard to boil down everything. that's what i said. it has to be based upon all the information that's available. you can certainly take out a witness here or witness there and come to a different

conclusion. but i think everyone has to look -- they'll have the ability to look at every bit of evidence and information that was put on and all the testimony and can do that. and some i understand -- i understand some people have made up their minds both ways and are not going to change. so there isn't a whole lot i can do. what i would urge them to do is express those feelings, express them in a constructive way and try to make some changes so that nothing like this ever happens again. yes, ma'am. >> you just explained that we need to work on issues so this kind of thing won't ever happen again. can you explain what some of those fixes are that need to happen? are any of them including whether or not police should shoot somebody whose hands are maybe at their stomach, at their sides or up in the air and maybe unarmed? >> you know, it's difficult to answer -- in fact, it's impossible to answer questions like that because there are so many variables that play into every case. and so there's just no real way to answer a question like that.

and so you have to look at every bit of information in every case that comes in. the idea, i hope, is to avoid of ever being in that situation. yes, sir. >> somebody who's had his record questioned by many members in the community with cases that have happened in the past, how do you feel announcing this decision? and what message do you think it sends to the community that says they have had numerous members of that community, young predominantly black males killed by police with impuimpunity, wh kind of message do you think this sends to them? >> well, a much better message that you're sending, young men being killed with impunity. we look at every case that comes through, young black men or young white men. we have young white men tragically killed by police officers in situations.

we hopefully learn from each and every one of those how to avoid being in that situation in the future. whether it's a justified shooting. so i think that's what has to go. and i think what the people in the community they need to make their voices heard. and they need to address those so we get those issue sos we're never in this position again. yes, sir. >> i think people looking at this from around the country are going to be struck by the fact there's not a single law in the state of missouri that protects and values the life of this young man who unquestionably was shot and killed dead, there's no dispute about that, by the police officer. what do you say to people who wonder is there something wrong with the laws here that allows this to happen tharks after this happens says we just move on essentially and that this is justice? is this really justice? or is there something wrong with the laws in the state that would say -- >> you know, it's another

question that really i don't have an answer to that question. what's wrong with the law? there are no laws to protect this. every law out there is to protect the safety of every individual regardless of their age and regardless of their race. and so if those laws are not working, then we need to work to change them. and that's about all that we can -- that's not all -- but that's what we should be doing. and that's where this needs to go from here. yes, sir. >> you've been accused of passing the buck, isn't that what you're elected to do? take a stand in this case. >> you have to understand there isn't anyone in the system as part of the checks and balances that we have in this system is that no one office, no one individual has the ultimate or absolute authority. if charges were filed in this case as they're filed in other cases, the case would still go to a preliminary hearing or to the grand jury. there still has to be a probable

cause determination. no one can just file a charge and go directly to a jury trial. that just cannot happen. and we have an obligation to present the evidence. i don't know how anyone can say it was, you know, we're passing the buck by gathering all this information and evidence. and even with the grand jury it's something we do on a weekly basis. we do it day in and day out, week in and week out. so it's certainly not passing the buck. yes, ma'am, back in the corner there. >> hi. can you use a specific vote breakdown and what's the possibility of federal charges? are those still a possibility outstanding? >> i can't give you a vote breakdown because i don't know that. and neither i can ask nor can the grand jurors reveal that. the federal investigation is still ongoing. they have all the information, all the evidence that we have. they had it, you know, as we got it. when we finished a day's worth of grand jury testimony, within a day or two that was in the hands of the department of

justice. when they did an interview, within hours that was in the hands of the department of justice. so they will conduct their interview or their investigation as we did. they're looking at different types of laws, obviously, and different violations. but when they will complete that i have no insight into that. yes, sir. >> did any witnesses refuse to testify? and if so how was that handled? >> i didn't hear the last part. >> if any witnesses refuse today testify, how was that handled? >> there were a few witnesses who were not brought in. they were witnesses who, you know, one didn't make a statement. there were a couple who just disappeared. we spent a lot of time searching for them. and with the assistance of the fbi but were unable to locate a couple of them. so none of the information in

one case i think we had a statement from the witness, it wasn't presented to the grand jury. i think there were a couple of them. yes, ma'am. only got time for a couple more here. >> you said officer wilson's description as brown moves towards him as a charge. was there any other evidence that might have led the grand jury to conclude wilson had reasonable cause for the use of deadly force? >> again, i'm not privy to the deliberations, and so i can't say what they saw as highly significant or not. but they had all the information. and they were charged with and they were told here's what the law requires you consider all of the evidence and the information. so it's not just in most cases it is not just one bit of evidence that says, all right, that's it. that's all we need to hear. it is everything that is presented which is why we want to make this as complete and thorough as possible.

yes, ma'am. >> what justification are you going to be using to release the grand jury evidence? i know there's been dispute as to whether a court order is going to be needed to present what it is you're saying you're able to present tonight. >> you know, i won't bore you with all the legal details and technicalities of it, but essentially it is now a closed investigation which makes it an open file. it's a lot more complicated and complex than that, but essentially that's how the sunshine law operates. when it's a closed investigation, when it's a closed case, it's an open file. and so that's the basis. there's no specific request for it, i assume there would be a request. but i thought it was important in the first place to release the information. yes, ma'am. >> bob, obviously many are not happy with this decision tonight especially the family of michael brown. if they are watching, what would you want to say to them this

evening? >> well, you know, as i've said at the very outset. my heart goes out to them regardless of the circumstances they lost a young man. they lost a young life. and i've said many times before that the pain that goes along with that loss is just something that most people can't understand. and so -- but at the same time everything was presented. things don't -- but everything was presented. everything was given to the grand jury and it was all put in front of them. and the 12 people made a decision based upon all that evidence that as tragic as this is it was not a -- it was not a crime or not one where charges should have been filed. it doesn't lessen this tragedy by the fact that it was a justifiable use of force or self-defense. there's still a loss of life here. and the family is going to have that loss forever.

it will be with them for a long time. you know, no police officer -- or no young man should ever be killed by a police officer. and no police officer should ever be put in that position. and so that's why i keep urging people to keep this talk going. so many times we've seen in the past where the discussion starts and then it fades away and then we have the same issues and we're back here again. i don't ever want to be back here. so we have to keep that discussion going. and everybody has to stay engaged in it. this is a horrible tragedy. and we don't want to see any repeat. thank you. >> an extraordinary press conference by prosecutor mccullough announcing no true bill will be returned in other words officer wilson will not be indicted in the shooting of michael brown. the prosecutor going into great detail as to the reasons why. keep in mind the standard in

that proceeding was was there probable cause to charge this officer with one of five crimes, the lowest being involuntary manslaughter, the most severe being first-degree murder. the prosecutor announcing that these grand jurors, these 12 grand jurors who he described as very emotional -- going through a very emotional process, that this has been very draining on them, nine caucasians, three african-americans saying that this was a full and fair process for them. they poured their hearts and souls into this. and they did not believe that the grounds were there, that the basis was there to return an indictment against officer wilson. talking specifically about the evidence that michael brown moved toward officer wilson, and officer wilson then shot and killed him. that was a critical part of the case. was he shot in the back? well, the prosecutor said that those witnesses who testified to that were completely disproven, that the evidence refuted those testimonials saying that much of what was put out there in the media turned out to be

completely untrue, much of what got a lot of the crowds stirred upturned out to be completely untrue. the prosecutor with some harsh words for some of the media who behaved irresponsibly and stoked some of the fires in this case. going onto talk about how there were 12 rounds fired, the officer suffered swelling and redness to his face, witnesses testified to how michael brown appeared to punch the officer while he was in his car, a chase ensued. the officer pulled out his firearm and that when michael brown was moving toward officer wilson, officer wilson shot and killed him. talking about how some witnesses even said he shot, then paused, then michael brown started to move again according to some witnesses. and then was shot again. i want to tell the audience sean is coming up in one moment. we're waiting for president obama. so we're going to go to president obama in a moment because he has speak tonight on this. sean hannity is standing by with