You are counting people who are making claims without considering credibility. If you read any of the documentation, or comments by the news organization who ac

You are counting people who are making claims without considering credibility. If you read any of the documentation, or comments by the news organization who actually analyzed the statements, you would find almost all of them also admitted they had never seen the event and were only repeating what others told them or what they heard on the radio. Some of these accounts also did not line up with each other or match the forensics. So you might be interested in this from the AP (and not Boing Boing): http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7df14/grand-jury-documents-rife-inconsistencies http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7d... And also this from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014... fwiw, CNN had a one hour back pedaling with two criminal defense attorneys, today, stating the same things. It's one thing to collect a bunch of people who tell you things. It's another for those accounts to be accurate, consistent among each other, and match the physical evidence.