>> we will be live here in st. louis as everyone turns their eyes now to st. louis county to announce whether the grand jury has returned criminal indictment, the shooting of michael brown at the hands of officer darren wilson. don't go anywhere. >> thanks, chris. a and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. it is now 9:00 here on the east coast. we're expected to hear the announcement from the prosecutor's office in st. louis county mo moe. the shot that you're looking at here is a live picture in clayton, missouri, just outside saint lewis. that's when we're expected to hear from the prosecutor's attorney if there's going to be an indictment in the shooting death of 18-year-old michael brown. he was unarmed when he was shot and killed by a ferguson, missouri police officer. for the last three months or so, a grand jury has been dlib rating inside this buildsing that you see here, deliberating about whether or not that

shooting by a local police officer was, in fact, a crime. a crime for which somebody should stand trial. the grand jury is 12 men and women. their identities are secret. they have viewed evidence and observed witnesses. we will learn whether or not that grand jury has decided to bring charges involved in that shooting. his name is darren wilson. in terms of, again, what we are expecteding tonight, the county prosecutor is named bob mcculloch. it could be his dgsz about whether or not to bring charges. he, instead, decided that a grand jury would more properly make that decision. >> we're told to expected about a 20 minute statement, which presumably means that we'll not only get a statement about whether or not there will be an indictment and, if so, what charges.

but there will also be an explanation on how the grand jury aroorived at this dgsz. you can see from the room, though, there are people in the foreground. those are reporters. we know from the county prosecutor's office that they booked see eed seats in advance. these are members of the press. they'll be allowed to ask questions of bob mcculloch. we're also told most appear to be local reporters from the saint lewis area. if there is no indictment tonight, obviously, a lot of attention will focus to what the reaction will be in the streets. what the reaction will be from michael brown's family.

there will also be an interesting legal question. and that is whether or not the evidence will be publicly released. as we've been describing over the course of the day and into the evening here on msnbc, one of the anomalous decisions that this prosecutor made was to not just present evidence to this grand jury that would help make the best case for a specific indictment on a specific charge. the prosecutor announced that everything they had, everything, full stock, would be handed over to this grand jury.

>> again, over three months going over vol luminous evidence from four hours of testimony from darren wilson. the three hours of deliberations, excuse me, three months of deliberations. we're told we're recorded. there were rourdings made of their deliberations and transcripts have been made of their recordings. there's question as to whether that evidence and whether the tapes and transcripts of their deliberations will be releeszed to the public. we hear from the court that if, in fact, that request is made of the court, if an announcement is made that there is not going to be an indictment, the court is saying -- the court's dgsz about whether or not to release all of that information is a decision that will take some time and whether that will involve a judge. we're told to expect it. i want to bring in nbc news

justice correspondent pete williams. >> a couple of things, rachel. the prosecutor actually origi l originally asked them to release the materials. >> my own guess would you describe be that that means there won't be an indictment. i say that sitly bassed on the fact that if there weren't to be an indictment, the proceeding would continue. and there isn't a heck of a lot he can say other than just to disclose what the charges are. but if he's going to talk for 20

min you wante minutes and release documents, that doesn't tell me that there's going to be an indictment. we don't know yet. but this whole question about whether the prosecutor can, on his own, release materials from the grand jury is very unusual one. he, initially, in his arguments to the court said i'm not going to release the proceedings of the grand jury. i'm making my own tript. it's mine. and i, under the missouri open records law, get to decide what too do with it. he initially asked the judge, is that okay, in essence, asking for an advisory opinion. aparentally, deciding that he can do this. it's very unusual. grand jury proceedings under state law, under federal law are secret. but he believes that there's a way around it or he doesn't -- or it's a different matter.

>> in terms to not give them any suggested charges and not filter any evidence that he gave them. giving them a raw data dump of everything they have. how unusual is that as a decision, pete? >> very. you know, you have to remember what a grand jury is. if it's supposed to be a fitter between the crime and whether there's supposed to be a trial or not. prosecutors normally make these decisions on their own. i guess about half the cases in that county go through a grand jury. some states use them for all, some state e states don't use

them at all. but they're a check on the prosecution. normally, what they do is say here's the evidence, this is the law, shall we indiet or not. it's not a mrksz in irksz trial, normally. it's just heres what -- >> i guess is that a fair krcri by then? what do they believe they can do if this was handled improperly by the prosecutor.

>> they can sue for wrongful death. and the legal standard is very different if they decide to do that. under missouri law, missouri is somewhat unusual in that the state law in missouri says that an officer has -- can shoot a fleeing felon even if the felon is unarmed, someone suspected of committing a felony. however, the u.s. supreme court has said in federal cases, you apply a very different standard. and you can't shoot an unarmed felon. it would be a tougher standard for the police officer and ea easier standard for someone suing if that's what the family chooses to pursue. but i would think that that would be their best legal recourse rather than to try to sue the state for vie lating the normal grand jury proceedings. i don't know that there's any law that says a prosecutor can't

give both sides to the grand jury. >> pete, i'm going to ask you to standby for a moment. we do have an attorney for the family who's with us now who actually can speak drektly to that matter. mr. parks, thank you very much for being with us tonight. i apriesh yat your time. >> thank you. >> ole want to ask you, we've been looking at a realtime picture of protesters in the streets of ferguson tonight and they're obviously anticipating this with a lot of anxiety. this may be the last moment before we hear this announcement, really, when people can hear reasonable arguments from both sides before i think we're about to get a lot of emotion one way or the other. is there anything that you can share from the perspective of the family or even the family's legal team in terms of what they're hoping for from people who are so concerned about this case.

their belief that keeping the faith that our skrjustice syste will work correctly. not because of anything else about him. that he should be able to walk awill and get away with this.

part of the protest movement around this case has been to try to achieve some measure of justice or at least some out rage in the streets to compensate for jus stis that is not coming through the system. if there is no indictment tonight, what do you think the prospects are for trying to get justice for michael brown through some other means. through a civil suit or through some other legal proceeding that the family might bring and that, indeed, you may be involved in. it's a criminal prosecution as than more so a civil prosecution.

er in very focused on making sure that he pay his duty to society for what he did to michael brown that day. no matter what happened, michael brown did not deserve to be killed and that officer wilson showed a complete lack of appreciation for the life that he took that day. he did not have to take michael brown, jr.,'s life. they're very focused on that. and very sincere about that. i can tell you, i spent a whole week with them in geneva a few weeks ago. and justice would mean the prosecution.

nothing less, nothing more. in a fair trial. a public trial. they are very misz fill fill e that someone would fight so hard that there's not a public trial. it's just not right. it's really not right. >> daryl parks, attorney for michael brown's family. sir, thank you very much for being with us tonight. we're told that the announcement is about to start in the next few sekt e seconds.

>> they've been considering for three months now the case of the shooting of michael brown by darren wilson. this grand jury has been given the decision in which there should be a criminal trial for someone in that shooting. we are expecteding not just an anounszment of the raw decision, we're also expecting a lengthy expla nation and we're told that he will then take questions. let's go live now to missouri. >> thanks for your patience. 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 my kal brown. as i've said in the past, i know that regardless of the circumstances here, they've lost a loved one to violence. i know that such a loss knows no bounds. on august 9, michael brown was shot and killed by darren wilson. within minutes, accounts began appearing on social media. little if any solid, accurate information. almost immediately, neighbors began angering and because of the underlying tension between the police department and the significant part of the neighborhood. the saint lewis county police conducted an extensive investigation at the crime scene. that times, under very trying circumstances, interyou wanted at least once by random gunfire. beginning that day and continuing for the next three

months they, along with the agents of the federal bureau of investigation at the drebs of attorney general spsz eric holder gathered additional evidence and inform vgs. fully aware of the unfounded by 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 the physical evidence gathered, all the people claiming to have witnessed any, part or all of the shooting, any and all other related ed matte would be presented to the grand jury. members sloikt eslerkted by a j may of this yearlong before this shooting occurred. i would like to briefly expand upon the unprecedented authorities. when attorney general holder first announced the investigation just days after the shooting, he plans that federal investigators will be working with local authorities as closely as possible in every

step of the way and would follow the facts where ever they pay take us. our separate invest gagszs follow that trail of facts our only goal was that the investigation would be thorough and deplete to give the grand jury, the department of justice and ultimately, the public, all available evidence to make an informed decision. all evidence was immediately shared with st. louis county investigators. likewise, all evidence gathered by st. louis county police was immediately shared with the federal investigators. initially, the department of justice conducted its own examination of all of the physical evidence and performed its own autopsy. all of this information was shared. just as importantly, all testimony was immediately

provided to the department of justice. although the investigations are sprat, both the local and the federal government have all of the same information and evidence. our investigation and par presentati presentation of the evidence has been completed. the most significant challenge has been the 24 hour news cycle. following closely blind with the non-stop rumors or social media, i recognize that the lack of detail frustrates the meal e media and the general public and helps breed suspicion those already distrusting of the system. the physical evidence give law enforcement a yardstick for measuring the truthfulness of witnesses.

>> some were completely refuted by the evidence. as an example, the results of the private autopsy were released during interviews with the media and even during questioning by law enforcement claim that they saw officer wilson stand over michael brown and fire many round into his back. others claim that officer wilson shot mr. brown in the back as mr. brown was running away. however, autopsies reveal that michael brown had not sustained any wounds to the back of his body. some even admitted that they did not witness the event at all, but merely repeeted what they heard in the neighborhood or others or assumed had happen.

the statements and the testimony of most of the witnesses were presented to the grand jury before the results were released by the media the jurors were, therefore, prior to the time released in the information going public and what followed in the news cycle, the jurors were already able to assess the credibility of the witnesses, including those witnesses whose statements and testimony remain consistent throughout every interview and were consistent with the physical evidence in this case. my two assistants began presenting to the grand jury.

all 12 jurors were present for every session and all 12 heard every word of testimony and examined every item of evidence. beginning august 20th and continuing until today, the grand jury worked tirelessly to examine and re-examine all of the testimony of the witnesses and all of the fids e physical evidence. they were extremely engaged in every process. they met on 25 separate days, heard over 70 hours of testimony and reviewed hours and hours of recordings of media and law enforcement interviews by many of the witnesses who testify. 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 ask be taken. they were instructed on the law and presented with five diemts rarnging from murder in the frs e fft e fifth degree to voluntary manslaughter. their burden was to determine if probable cause exists to believe that a crime was committed and that darren wilson was the person who kmited that crime. there is no question, of course, that darren wilson caused the death of michael brown by shoothding him. the law allows all people to defend themselves. 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 act e acted in self defense. there was a full investigation 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 to sprat fact from fiction. after a full and impartial examination of all of the evidence in law and examining any criminal charges against darren wilson, they accepted the empanel. it is important to note here and say again that they are the only people, the only people who have heard and kpnled every piece of

evidence and every witness. after their exhaustive review of the evidence, the grand jury dlib rated over two days making their final dgsz. 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 tells the 5:00 rat and tragic story of what happened. a very general sill notary public sisz of the testimony and physical evidence presented to the grand jury follows. please noet, 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 1145 a.m., darren wilson was dispatched to the north wipds apartment complex for an emergency involving a two-month infant having trouble breathing. at approximately 11:53, while still at the north winds call, wilson heard a radio bro cast f bro broadcast in progress. other officers were dispatched. officer wilson had left north winds complex in his ferguson police vehicle, a chevy tahoe, suv. an additional description of the stealing suspect was broadcast e cast about that time. wearing a red hat, yellow socks, khaki shorts and with another male.

as officer will son-in-law was attending to his emergency call on north winds, michael brown and a companion were in a local convenience store on west floreson. michael brown's activity was recorded by the store's security cameras. the video often played following its releesz in august, shows michael brown grabbing a handful of cigarelloa srksz and heading to the exit without paying. someone inside the star called the police. after crossing west floreson, the two walked east. mr. brown directly behind his companion. as officer wilson continued west. he encountered michael brown and his companion. as wilson slowed or stopped, as he reached mr. brown, he tomd them to move to the sidewalk.

words were exchanged and michael brown continued down the street. at approximately 1202 p.m., wilson radioed that he had two individuals on canfield and needed assistance. officer wilson backed his vehicle at an angle. an ator kagsz took place at the car with officer wilson seated inside the vehicle and mr. brown standing at the driver's window. during the ator kagsz, 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, as michael brown

moved toward the officer, several more shots were fired and 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 companion and the arrival of that assist car. during the investigation, many eyewitnesss were interviewed by various media outlets. several others chose not to talk to the media, but contacted law enforcement drektly. witnesses were interviewed by local and federal law enforcement. all statements were provided to the other party. all previous interviews were presented to the grand jury.

challenged by other law enforcement, by the prosz cue xxs and by the grand jurors themselves. the common and highly effective method of challenging a statement is to compare it to the previous statements of the witnesses for consistency. physical evidence does not change because of public pressure or personal agenda. physical evidence does got look away as events unfold. nor does it block out or add too memory. physical evidence remains con stant and is such as a solid foundation upon which foundations are built. statements changed, witnesses are confronted with the inconsistencies and con flikt between their statements and the physical evidence. some witnesses admitted they didn't actually see the shooting or only saw a part of the shooting. some others adjusted part of their statements to fit the facts.

several witnesses describe seeing an ator kagsz. several other witnesses describe mr. brown as punching officer will son-in-law 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 aufrgs wioff wilson's cloeting and equipment were analyzed. mr. brown's blood and dna were located on the outside to have the door. they 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 bull et was located inside the door in a downward angle. the second bullet was not recovered. regarding the gun shot wound to mr. brown, it should benoted that the three separate autopsies were conducted. the results of all three auto y autopsies were significant of one another in all significant respects. mr. brown has a gun shot and braise wound. the path of that bullet is away

from the tip of the hand, consistent with a close up close range gunshot is present inside that wound. officer wilson also had a medical examination. almost all witnesses stated after they heard the shot fired while mr. brown was at the car, he he has tsitated and then ran on camfield. most stated that almost immediately, aufrofficer wilson out immediately and chased him with his vehicle. some witnesses say he struck dr or one of the shots struck mr. brown. others stated that he did not fire until mr. brown turned and came back toward officer wilson. at least one witness stated that as officer wilson got out of the vehicle, he shot mr. brown mults pl times as mr. brown stood next to the vehicle.

yet, another witness state ds that officer wilson and fired at mr. brown as mr. brown was running. one witness stated that there were two police vehicles and four present but only one officer fire ds a weapon. most witnesses agreed that near the corner of cramfield and copper creek, mr. brown stopped and turned around facing officer wilson. some say prchlt brown did not move toward officer wilson at all but multiple times as he stood near the corner. in sub sell kwsequent views, mae same witnesses acknowledge that they didn't see the shooting. so 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.

>> several witnesses said that he did not drop to the ground. others say that mr. brown stopped for a very brief period and then moved toward mr. wilson again. one described his movemented 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 hand 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 fist. there are also various witness statements regarding mr. brown's movement after he stopped and turned back toward officer wilson. several witnesses said mr. broub never moved toward officer wilson and was shot where he stood at the corner. most said that the shots were fired as he moved toward wilson. mr. brown's movements were described, as they said, walking, moving fastz, stumbling or full charge. like eother aspects of this cas, the varying descriptions were provided by the same witnesses in some case or testimony. a total of 12 rounds were fired by officer wilson. two shots at the car, ten more shots farther east on camfield.

mr. brown sustained a graze wound to his thumb while substantial doubting next to the vehicle. he sustained six or seven more g gun shot wounds depending on whether or not one was an entry wound. he susz taned another graze wound to his right bicep, upper right chest, fore e forhead and top of the head. t the. >> wanted to return the order of the shots. the graze wound to the thumb sustained at the vehicle was likely the first wound. it was the only close-range shot. the shot to the top of the head was moek most likely the laes.

it would have rendered him immediately unconscious and incapacity e tated. mr. brown's body was located approximately 153 feet east of officer wilson's car. mr. brown's blood was located approximately 25 feet pass e passed his body. there was a string of several shots followed by a brief pause followed by another string of several shots. >> as i stated earlier, the evidence and the testimony will be releeszed 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 mist be determined by the physical and

scientific evidence and the credible testimony corroborated by that evidence, not in response to public out cry or for political expediency. decisions on a matter as serious as charging an individual with a crime simply cannot be decide ds on anything less than a complete, critical examination of all available evidence. anything less is not systemic tis. it's my sworn duty of that of the grand jury is to seek justice. i do want to say that during this extremely tense and painful time that we have, the citizens of this community is saying that the whole world is watching how we respond and we react. with the loss 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.

it's opened old wounds and it's given us an opportunity to address those wounds, opposed to in the past as they just fade away and how many years they talk about the i shall shoes that lead to incidents like this. and, yet, after a period of time, it just sort of fades away. so i urge everybody who has engaged in the conversation, who has 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 and by changing 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 urban league.

i have time for a few questions now. just start over here. >> the first question is the grand jury by statute is not am i nor is anyone else allowed to ask or discuss the vote or the dlib ragszs themselves. now, the grand jury is a very secret process. and it should be in order to protect that secrecy and to protect the witnesses to come out and talk about and speak freely in there.

the jury deliberations in the grand jury or the trial jury, they're not recorded and the trial, of course, they're unanimous. but, by statute, the grand jury is not allowed to ask what the vote was. nor are they allowed to or anyone allowed to ask what the diskugsz was. the opinion was expressed by the other grand jurors. >> do any e anyone rise to the level of perjury charges? >> i think there are a number of witnesses who truly believe what they said. 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. and they didn't. so, no, some of the others, yes. they were making it up, but they all pretty much acknowledged that they saw parts and then made up other things. >> is there some sort of quorum for presenting this evidence? >> no, not at all. i think this was a good deposition exhibit dgsz to take this to the grands jury. as e all the evidence that there possibly could be, all of which who could be available, all of which could be available and available as we finish this tonight. so everyone will be available to

examine that same evidence and come to that con clugsz. i know that people rbt going to go home and read everything that goes on there and make a dgsz based on that. you need to keep in mind that these grand jurors poured theirhearte theirheartthei theirhearteds and souls into this process. >> i can tell you just how e moegsz e motional and how draining it was for eemp and every one of them. >> anyone suggesting that somehow it's just not a full and fair process is just not unfair to these people. they poured theirhearteds and souls into this.

yes, ma'am? right next to you. >> i'll hand it right over. can you tell us anything more about the grand jury. we've heard of some very bassic demographics. the basic ages and perhaps in which the e those folks voted. >> i really can believe the. i really can't that was the waif the judge released or the make-up of the grands jury. what i can tell you, and i'm not speaking too far out of line, is that the 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 cat goir that you can come up with is going to be rep zentded on that grand jury. various ages, income, where they live, retired, still working, blue collar, professional. almost anything you can think of is going to be on that grand jury.

and they tend to be that way across the spectrum. we have three a year. >> yes, ma'am? >> sir, were there any african american witnesses who testified that michael brown was coming towards the aufrsz when brown was shot? >> yes. all 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 at a full charge and that has officer will son-in-law fired shots at him, mr. brown stopped, officer wilson stopped shooting and as mr. brown started charging at him again, those were his words, his testimony, mr. wilson started shooting again. the others who had very consistent stories, or not just their stories or their testimony tlout, 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 prapsz

his stay tusz tonight. >> i have no idea what his stay tusz is. but his testimony was, again, it's in the packet. it will be releeszed. but his testimony, and these are questions that were asked a lot by the grand jurors. questioning him and challenging him on why he didn't use lesser force, why he didn't run away. and rather than get into the specifics of that, i will say that, he did testify, of course, that he was sitting in the car and punched by mr. brown. i think all of that information from his vergsz out there -- or is out there. i specifically didn't do that. in any case, the target or the suspected is -- has the most interest there the case. 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 upon that testimony. so, yes, sir. >> the blue shirt?

>> you mentioned that there's video of the final ten shots. will that be releeszed? >> i assume that that microphone is going somewhere. but it's not going here. there's not video, there's audio. he was on a video chating in the background. but, yes, that should be in the packet. if it's not, we will get the audio out. yesz. >> i know there were protesters who would say look, this jury had nine whites on it, three blacks. what do you say to somebody who miekt be out there who thinks it wasn't justice? how do you boil it down. why is it justice. >> you know, it's hard to boil down everything. that's what i said, it has to be bassed upon all the information that's available. you can certainly take out a witness here or a witness there and come to a different con

clugsz. 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 that can do that. some, i understand, i understand people can do that. i understand they've 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, else pr 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 exz plained that we need to work on issues so that this kind of thing won't ever happen again. can you exz plain whether or not police should shoot somebody's who hands may be at their stoma stomach, maybe at their sides or maybe up in the air and they are unarmed? >> you know, it's difficult to answer. in fact, it's impose to answer questions like that. there are so many variables that play into every case. so there's just no real way to

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

one of those and hopefully learn from each and every one of those learning how to avoid being in that situation in the future, whether it's a justified shooting. i think the people in the community, they need to make their voices heard and they need to address those issues so that we're never in this position again. yes, sir? >> i think people are looking at this from around the country and are going to be struck by the fact that 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? that 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 -- >> you know, it's another

question that, that really, i don't have an answer to that question, that what's wrong with the law? there's no law 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. 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. so yes, sir? >> you've been accused by some of passing the buck, by standing back and putting this evidence before the jury and shouldn't you have taken a stand on this case? >> you have to understand, there isn't any one in the system, as far as the checks and balances in the system, 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 a

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 we're passing the buck by gathering all this information and evidence and meeting with the grand jury. it's something we do on a daily basis, week in and week out. so it's certainly not passing the buck. yes, ma'am, back in the corner there? >> hi, can you do a specific vote break down? and what's the possibility of federal charges? are those still a possibility and outstanding? >> i can't give you a vote break down, because i don't know that, and neither i, i can't ask, nor can the grand jurors reveal that. the federal investigation is still ongoing. they have all the information, alt 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, that was in the hands of the department of justice. so they will conduct their interview, 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, 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 refused to testify, how was that handled? >> there were, there were a few witnesses who were not brought in. they were witnesses who, you know, one, 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. 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? we have time for a couple more here. >> you said officer wilson's description of brown's movement toward 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 think you have to have, i'm not privy to the deliberations, and soy can't say what they saw as highly significant or not, but they had all the information, and they were charged with and were told here's what the law requires that you consider all of the evidence and the information. 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's everything is presented. which is why we need to make

this as thorough as possible. >> what is needed to present what you're presenting tonight? >> i won't bore you with all the legal details and technicalities. 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 case, it's an open file. and so that's the basis. for our sunshine law, though 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. so. 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? >> as i 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, that most people can't understand. and so, but at the same time, everything was presented, you know, and it's, things don't, i mean, but everything was presented. everything was given to the grand jury. it was all put in front of them. and the 12 people made a decision that based upon all that evidence, that as tragic as this is, it was not, not a crime. it was not one that where charges should have been filed. it doesn't lessen, 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.

that 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 repeats, so thank you. >> st. louis prosecuting attorney bob mcculloch announcing that there will be no indictment filed against ferguson, missouri police officer darin wilson in the shooting death of michael brown. we're told that president obama will be speaking on this matter shortly.

we've been looking at live pictures of protests outside the police department in ferguson, missouri which is nearby but not immediately in st. louis. in firms terms of the reaction, brown family has released a statement saying we're profoundly disappointed that the killer of our son will not face charges. we ask that you channel your efforts in a way that makes a positive change. join with us in our campaign to ensure that every police officer working the streets in this country wears a body camera. we respectfully ask that you keep your protests peaceful, answering violence with violence is not the appropriate reaction. let's not just make noise. let's make a difference. darin wilson's attorneys have also released a statement saying today a st. louis grand jury

released a statement that no charges would be filed. from the onset we have maintained and the grand jury agreed that officer wilson's actions were in accordance with the laws and regulations that governor t govern the actions of an officer. there will be no indictment of the officer who killed michael brown. and our reaction continues. thanks, rachel. we are continuing our live coverage. no indictment on any of the five possible charges placed before that grand jury by prosecutors. charges against officer wilson. this is the scene outside the ferguson police station from the ground and from the air. people are also gathering at a memorial on canfield drive in ferguson where michael brown was shot and killed on august 9th. we're