Identifying himself by name, he told his story and answered questions publicly. The video shows him in his initial televised interview, with CNN's Anderson Cooper on August 20.
Note to people who watch the video: Beginning at 4:35, Brady talks about running outside. He means running out onto his apartment's balcony.
Until Brady appeared publicly, the only named witnesses who spoke publicly were Dorian Johnson, Tiffany Mitchell and Piaget Crenshaw, who told their false story about Michael Brown standing still, raising his hands and trying to surrender.
Michael Brady talked most informatively about the actions that happened near the Darren Wilson's police vehicle. He observed those actions from his bedroom window. He told the public that he saw Brown sticking his arms into the vehicle and struggling with Wilson's arms. Brady thus became the first eyewitness to publicly contradict Dorian Johnson's public lies that Brown acted peacefully at the vehicle.
Brady missed observing much of the incident, however, because he left the bedroom window to move to the balcony -- and on the way he went back to get his cell phone. The gap in Brady's observation ...
* began when Wilson had just walked past the Monte Carlo,
* ended when Brown was being hit by the last four or so bullets and falling down.
During that gap, however, Fiancée Brady was observing. Her observation ...
** began when Wilson was walking away from his police vehicle and beginning to pass the Monte Carlo,
** ended when Brown was being hit by the last four or so bullets.
The Brady couple's observations were complementary. Each saw the parts that the other missed. After the incident, they shared their observations, filling in each other's gaps, affecting each other's narratives.
In this blog, I explain why Johnson was not able to describe the incident's final, fatal seconds correctly. Johnson concocted a false story about Brown standing still and trying to surrender because Johnson did not see what actually happened. Johnson was hiding down in front of the Monte Carlo's passenger seat during those crucial moments.
A major problem with my explanation is that Michael Brady says Johnson jumped into the Monte Carlo after Brown fell dead. If so, then Johnson surely did see Brown's and Wilson's final actions in the incident. Therefore, in this series of articles about the Brady couple, I will discredit Michael Brady's claim that he saw Johnson jump into the Monte Carlo. I think, that Michael Brady was essentially honest and that he did see Johnson sitting inside the Monte Carlo. He fibbed about seeing Johnson getting into the Monte Carlo for honorable reasons.
Fiancée Brady did see Johnson jump into the Monte Carlo, but that moment occurred while Michael Brady still was fussing with his cell phone inside the apartment and before Wilson began firing the final series of gunshots.
After the incident, Fiancée Brady told Michael Brady that she had seen Johnson jump into the Monte Carlo. He believed her and so added her observation to the end of his own narrative, as if he himself had seen Johnson get into the car.
One reason why Michael Brady incorporated elements of Fiancée Brady's narrative into his own narrative was that he perceived that she did not want to cooperate with the investigators. Although he told his own story boldly and repeatedly on national television, she did not share his attitude. She initially and persistently tried to avoid making official or public statements.
Therefore, Michael Brady tried gallantly to tell her story through his own story. She saw the jump into the Monte Carlo, so he said he saw the jump into the car. In his mind, his white lie was benign -- helpful to the investigation and to his fiancée.
Because of his own gap in observing the incident, he was compelled to say that he saw Johnson jump into the Monte Carlo after Brown fell dead. Because he was fussing with his cell phone inside the apartment, he resumed observing the incident as Brown was beginning to fall dead.
Fiancée Brady's reluctance to provide statements to investigators began on August 9, 2014, the very day of the incident.
At about 4:30 p.m., a detective knocked on the Brady family's front door and asked if anyone in the apartment had seen the incident. Michael Brady responded that he had seen it, and he agreed to let the detective record a statement, which lasted from 4:40 to 4:43 p.m. In that statement, Michael Brady said he saw Johnson hop into the white car and then ride away.
Two minutes later Brady asked the detective to record a follow-up statement to clarify the sequence of events. He did not change anything about Johnson's hopping into the car. This second interview lasted from 4:45 to 4:47 p.m.
Impressed by watching Michael's statements, she now changed her mind and agreed to a recording of her own statement. The detective began interviewing Fiancée Brady at 4:59 p.m.* The transcript begins with the detective making unusual remarks indicating that Fiancée Brady had changed her mind about providing a recorded statement.
Detective The person being interviewed is [Fiancee Brady]. .... This interview is taking place in her apartment, which she shares with [Michael Brady].
Ma'am, we spoke earlier in reference what you saw. ... and, you provided me a statement. Now you're willing to record that statement, correct?
Fiancée Brady Yes, sir.
Therefore, when Michael Brady provided his own statements to the detective, he expected that his statement would be the only one recorded on that occasion. Michael Brady was telling the story for himself and also for his fiancée, and so he mentioned that Johnson had hopped into the white car.
Michael Brown told their mutual story not only to the detective but several days later also to CNN's Anderson Cooper and then to other journalists of the mass media. Fiancée Brady remained unknown to and unheard by the public.
The history of investigative interviews of Fiancée Brady is characterized by her continuing reluctance to cooperate. She was interviewed three times.
1) She was interviewed by a detective on August 9 at 5 p.m.* -- about five hours after the incident. The detective had knocked on the door unexpectedly. After interviewing Michael, the detective had to confirm that now she too was willing to record her statement. She did not mention the Monte Carlo during this interview, but she had just heard Michael Brady mention it to the detective a few minutes earlier..
2) She was interviewed by the FBI, about a week after the incident. FBI agents knocked on her door unexpectedly. Uncooperative with the agents' effort to determine the truth, she told them a series of big, brazen lies. 1) She saw Wilson try to run over Johnson and Brown with his police vehicle. 2) She saw Brown turn around and raise his hands, trying to surrender. 3) She saw Wilson walk toward Brown, shooting him to death.
The transcript of that interview has not been released to the public, as far as I know. According to the Justice Department's report, the "inconsistencies" between her FBI interview and her earlier, detective interview caused the FBI to schedule a follow-up interview with her.
Witness 124 gave two interviews to law enforcement, first to SLCPD [Saint Louis County Police Department] detectives and then to FBI agents during their canvass one week after the shooting. ... [Her lies are listed.]
In an effort to reconcile the apparent inconsistencies in Witness 124's accounts and determine what she actually witnessed as opposed to what she may have heard from others, federal prosecutors sought to meet with her. However, Witness 124 failed to appear for a scheduled meeting and refused to reschedule at any time or place of her convenience.
[Pages 54 - 55]In several of the transcripts of FBI interviews that have been released to the public, the agents interrupt the questioning when the lying becomes blatant. The agents warn the witnesses that lying to an FBI agent is a federal crime, punishable as perjury. The agents politely but ominously admonish the witnesses to stop lying and to begin speaking truthfully. It's likely that if the transcript of the FBI interview ever were released to the public, then the transcript would include such an interruption, warning and admonishment.
Therefore, she persistently avoided a follow-up interview withe the FBI.
3) She was interviewed by the grand jury on October 7 (beginning on page 137). She generally tried to tell the truth, but the prosecutor confronted her with the lies she had told the FBI. She did not admit she had lied to the FBI, but she moderated and fudged her story.
Michael Brady was interviewed on four occasions. On each occasion, he was uncertain about Fiancée Brady's further cooperation. Therefore, he always tried to speak for both of them, telling their mutual story.
A) He was interviewed by a detective on August 9, about 20 minutes before Fiancée Brady. During that interview, he understood that his fiancée refused to provide a recorded interview.
B) He was interviewed by two detectives on August 13. She was not interviewed by detectives a second time.
C) He was interviewed by an FBI special agent on September 17. This date might have been the day after she had been contacted unexpectedly by the FBI "during their canvass one week after the shooting" -- on about September 16. Perhaps the FBI interviewed Michael too on that day, or perhaps the FBI returned the next day to interview him.
D) He was interviewed in front of the grand jury on September 25.
I speculate that Fiancée Brady was supposed to appear for her follow-up FBI interview before September 25. If she had done so, then she too would have appeared before the grand jury on September 25, the same day as Michael Brady. Because she evaded the follow-up FBI interview, however, her grand-jury appearance was postponed into October. Although she continued to evade the second FBI interview, she eventually she testified to the grand jury on October 7.
The sequence of events told by Fiancée Brady and Michael Brady is imprecise and inconsistent, because the crucial actions took place during just a few seconds and in a confusing situation. The couple honestly were uncertain about some details. I will try to reconstruct the actual sequence of events from their statements but also by some logical considerations.
I will mention another possibility explaining a Brady family cover-up of some facts. During the incident their three son's came out onto the balcony, and it's possible that one of them saw Johnson jump into the Monte Carlo. She was 23 years old, so her own biological sons would be very young. Michael, however, was 32 years old, so he might have had a son (her step-son) who might have been even a young teenager. This older boy might have seen Johnson jump into the Monte Carlo, but his parents decided to keep him out of the investigation.