The Monte Carlo driver's statements about the incident were confused and dubious

MC Owner told her story three times. 

1) On the late afternoon of August 9, unknown to her, a casual acquaintance tipped off a detective that MC Owner had seen the incident. The detective showed up five minutes later and surprised her with a request to tell her story. MC Owner consented to tell her story to a detective in an interview that lasted only 8½ minutes.

2) After ignoring and evading investigators for two months, MC Owner consented to tell her story on October 12 or 13* to an FBI special agent.

3) She told her story on October 13 to the grand jury (beginning on page 102).   

The FBI special agent just rehashed the August 9 interview. MC Owner was not questioned critically and at length until the grand-jury hearing, which lasted more than two hours. 

MC Owner's story was false, which is why she didn't want to tell it to investigators. She was asked questions she did not expect and so had to concoct answers on the spot. 

The truth (I have argued in my previous articles) was that her Monte Carlo was the get-away car for Brown and Johnson after the robbery of the Ferguson Market and Liquor store. Later, on Canfield Drive, she made a U-turn and drove back west to Wilson's police vehicle. There, her Monte Carlo again served as a get-away car for Johnson. She had to tell a story that was completely different.  

MC Owner was concerned that she and her Monte Carlo had been seen by bystanders during the incident. She had to concoct a story that would explain what those bystanders might have reported to investigators about her actions. 

------

When the detective showed up unexpectedly on August 9, MC Owner was in a group situation. She was staying in the home of an acquaintance of her mother. The acquaintance and the mother were present. At least one neighbor -- the one who called the detective -- was present, and they all were discussing the incident. MC Owner could have answered the detective's questions in the group's presence, but a decision was made that she and the detective drove alone to a nearby barbecue restaurant. 

It would have made much more sense for them to drive to the killing scene, which was just as close in the opposite direction, so that MC Owner could have pointed to all the exact places for the detective. I have suggested that MC Owner worked at the restaurant and was supposed to begin working there at 7 p.m. 

I suggest also that MC Owner did not want to tell her false story to the detective in front of her mother and all the other acquaintances. 

------

The story that MC Owner told the detective on August 9 is remarkable for two omissions. 

1) She did not mention that she had a passenger in the Monte Carlo. (In the transcript, the detective did not ask her whether anyone else was in the car.) 

2) She did not mention that Wilson's police vehicle drove backward to block Johnson's and Brown's path. This omission is especially remarkable because she estimated that her following distance did not exceed ten feet. Her story indicated that the struggle between Wilson and Brown through the vehicle's window took place in the same spot as the initial encounter. (I have suggested that MC Owner was making her U-turn when Wilson drove backward.) 

------

By the time of her interviews on October 13, she had watched a lot of television reporting and engaged in a lot of personal conversations with MC Passenger about the incident. Nevertheless, her final story suffered from several inconsistencies. 

1) She seemed to say that she initially stopped far behind -- in the area where eventually Brown fell dead, between two apartment buildings -- and did not explain why and when she drove closer to the police vehicle. 

2) She contradicted herself about her car's situation when Wilson backed his vehicle up. First she said that she had to swerve out of his way, and then she said she already had stopped when Wilson backed up. 

3) She said she never opened her car door during the incident, although MC Passenger had insisted repeatedly that she did so. 

----------

In her grand jury testimony on October 13, MC Owner abandoned her initial idea that she followed Wilson's police vehicle at a distance of no more than ten feet. Now to the grand jury she indicated that she stopped on Canfield Drive far behind the police vehicle, almost as soon as she saw Brown and Johnson in the distance. 

Prosecutor At some point the officer's car stopped ... Were you behind the officer when the officer's car stopped?

MC Owner  Yes, ma'am, I sure was [behind the officer's car] -- probably right in between the apartment complex. Just like right actually [where] he [Brown] fell out is actually where I stopped. 

Prosecutor  So when you first saw the officer stop, what did you observe? 

MC Owner  I just observed there are two gentlemen walking down the street. They was walking my direction, going back towards Northwinds.

BF = Where Brown "fell out"
Red lines = "Right in between the apartment complex"
BJ = Brown and Johnson's position when Wilson initially stopped
PV = Police vehicle's position after it backed up 

I interpret MC Owner's explanation of her stopping point to be somewhere around the east side Building 5, which is where Brown "fell out". I think that her expression "right in between the apartment complex" meant between Building 5 and Building 18, an area marked by the red lines in the above photograph. 

In the above photograph, I put the label "BJ" in the area where Wilson initially stopped and asked Brown and Johnson to walk on the sidewalk. After Wilson backed up his police vehicle to block their path, he stopped in the area labeled "PV". 

----------

In her August 9 interview, MC Owner seemed to say that Wilson stopped only once -- omitting Wilson's backward drive and second stop. In her October 13 testimony to the grand jury she now did say that Wilson drove backward. 

Prosecutor  When you saw that [police] car stopped, was the car just driving in the natural [right lane], down the lane, or did it stop some other way?

MC Owner  It was straight down the lane.

Prosecutor  And what happened at that time when you saw the car stop? Did he [Wilson] appear to be talking to anybody?

MC Owner  Yes, ma'am, but I didn't hear anything. 

After the actual stop -- quick seconds, it wasn't really a long period of time -- I saw the SUV go in reverse. I saw the reverse lights on, and it came to the two guys, and they jump back. He [Wilson] put it in reverse, [and] it went back.

And that's when it [the police vehicle] went to an actual stop. The truck shook just a little bit. You could tell that somebody pressed down on the brake really hard. ....

As the two suspects start to actually keep walking. It looks like he [Wilson] is trying to stop them from walking away from the truck.

Prosecutor  I see. They're walking away, so he has to go in reverse to get up to them?

MC Owner Yes, ma'am.

[Pages 111 - 112]

To dramatize her false story that she had seen Wilson back up, MC Owner began to tell the grand jury that she even had to swerve out of Wilson's way as he backed up. Apparently, though, she immediately decided not to continue along those lines and instead said that she already had stopped well before Wilson's vehicle back up close to her car.  

Prosecutor  When the officer drove back at the diagonal and hit the brake real hard, was he close to hitting you, your car?

MC Owner  Actually, he was close enough, but he was, like, right there to where I couldn't even move. I thought as it [the police vehicle] was coming -- I was kind of shocked -- he would have hit my car, but he didn't.

Prosecutor  Were you concerned that he was going came back?

MC Owner  Yes, ma'am, I had to swerve over.

Prosecutor  You swerved over?

MC Owner  No, ma'am, I was [already] there.

Prosecutor  You stopped?

MC Owner  Yes, ma'am.

[Pages 113 - 114] 

In sum, MC Owner's testimony about how she found herself stopped close to Wilson's police vehicle was confused. She evidently had not thought through that part of her story adequately beforehand, and so she had to make it up as she went along during her testimony. 


-------

MC Owner's (and MC Passenger's) determination to lie to investigators and to the grand jury is illustrated by her insistence in October that she did not know MC Passenger's last name, although she had socialized with him often for more than a year. 

MC Passenger told investigators that he and MC Owner discussed the incident whenever they watched the CNN reports.

FBI Special Agent  Have you talked to her since then [the incident]?   

MC Passenger  Yeah, this morning. ....

FBI SA Have you and [MC Owner] talked about this? 

MC Passenger  Yeah, when we look at CNN.  

FBI SA  Okay. So  you were watching TV and then started talking? 

MC Passenger  Yeah. 

[Pages 27 and 29]  

MC Passenger remarked to the grand jury that they had talked about the incident "basically every day" and had been a close friend for about a year. 

Prosecutor  Did you ever, after [MC Owner] dropped you off [right after the incident], have you ever had a conversation with her about what the two of you witnessed?   

MC Passenger  Yeah, basically every day, from when we see it on TV.  

[Pages 199 - 200]

Prosecutor  I guess you two have a pretty close friendship. 

MC Passenger  Uh-huh, yes.

Prosecutor How long have you known her?

MC Passenger  Since approximately about a year.

Prosecutor  About a year?

MC Passenger  About a year. 

[Page 203]

Nevertheless, MC Owner told the FBI special agent on October 12 or 13 that she still did not know MC Passenger's last name:

FBI SA  Who else was in the car with you? 

MC Owner   One of our friends.

FBI SA  And who is that?

MC Owner  His name is [MC Passenger's first name]. I don't know his last name. 

[Page 6]

MC Passenger likewise insisted as late as August that he did not know MC Owner's last name. 

Detective  Who were you with?

MC Passenger  A girl named [MC Owner's first name]. 

Detective  You know [MC Owner's] name?

MC Passenger  Huh uh [no].

[Page 5]

----------

In general, MC Passenger told a story that was much more coherent and consistent than MC Owner did. He also was much less emotional during the incident itself. I had the impression that he told her what to do during and after the incident. 

---------

* The grand-jury questioning of MC Owner began a few minutes at 11:03 a.m. on October 13 (page 102). Earlier that morning, the transcript of the FBI interview was read aloud to the grand jury (page 70). However, the FBI interview is dated October 13 at 6:26 p.m. Somehow the FBI transcript is misdated and should be October 12 at 6:26 p.m. or else October 13 at 6:26 a.m. 

Investigators searched for the Monte Carlo and its driver

On August 22, MC Passenger was interviewed by law-enforcement investigators for the first time. The local NAACP office had identified MC Passenger, convinced him to provide information, and arranged for the investigators to interview him in the NAACP office.

In this interview, MC Passenger claimed that he knew MC Owner only by her first name and knew that she lived somewhere in Northwinds Apartment Complex.

MC Passenger I was leaving from a young lady's apartment. I guess it was about 11:55 [a.m.]. 

FBI SA  Whose apartment was it? Was it someone in Canfield Green? 

MC Passenger  I think it was the other one -- Northwinds. In the back area. I came from that way. ..... From where I came, from her house, an officer came that way, hopped in front of us, real quick. We was behind him.  He got a fair lead, so we were behind kind of far. 

As we approached him, he was talking to Mike and his friend. 

FBI SA  What kind of car were you driving? 

MC Passenger  I wasn't driving. I was in the passenger [seat]. It was a white Monte Carlo .... 

Detective  Who were you with? 

MC Passenger  A girl named [MC Owner's First Name].

Detective  You know [MC Owner]'s last name? 

MC Passenger  Huh uh [no]. 

Detective  Okay. Was anyone else in the car beside you and [MC Owner]? 

MC Passenger  Huh uh [no]. 

Detective  Whose car was it? 

MC Passenger  Hers. 

[Pages 3 - 6]

MC Passenger's description of the car as a white Monte Carlo matched descriptions given to investigators previously by Dorian Johnson, Piaget Crenshaw, Michael Brady and other witnesses. 

On August 27, five days after the Passenger interview, investigators began to search for a particular automobile. The search was recorded in the investigation report, which later was released to the public with many words whited out. Therefore many details about the search and about the automobile remain secret or at least obscure. In the excerpts below, I have marked the whited-out words with brackets, into which I have written my guesses. (In this post I will write as if it were a certainty that the sought car was the Monte Carlo.) 

The investigators were looking for an automobile that was "captured on video surveillance on Canfield Drive at the approximate time of the incident". Because the Canfield Green Apartment Complex's property owner told investigators that the Complex did not have any video surveillance (investigation report, page 96), the automobile must have been photographed by a video camera that was placed along Canfield Drive but outside the Complex.

At the east edge of Canfield Green Apartment Complex, Canfield Drive changes its name to Windward Court as it enters the neighboring Northwinds Apartment Complex. Therefore, the video camera must have been placed on Canfield Drive somewhere west of Canfield Green Apartment Complex. At the went end of Canfield Drive, at its intersection with West Florissant Avenue, there are businesses on the north and south sides of the street. The video camera must have been placed at one of those businesses.

The vertical street on this photograph's left side is West Florissant Avenue. Perpendicular to it is Canfield Drive. At the intersection, there are two businesses (one is Quick Trip Mart) along the north and south sides of Canfield Drive. A video camera at one of those businesses photographed a particular automobile "at the approximate time of the incident".
.
Canfield Green Apartment Complex is the upper-right part of the photograph.
This complex did not have any surveillance cameras.
.
A short distance past the photograph's right margin, Canfield Drive changes its name to Windward Court,
as the street enters the neighboring Northwinds Apartment Complex.
The Monte Carlo's driver lived in Northwinds Apartment Complex.

Although a detective had interviewed MC Owner on August 9, that interview's transcript does not include a description or identification of the automobile. Only in later interviews of other witnesses was the automobile identified as a white Monte Carlo. It seems that the investigators then studied film from a surveillance camera and found such a car driving west on Canfield Drive a short time after the incident.

The surveillance camera's location can be deduced from the investigation report. On August 12, investigators identified, at a business on West Florissant Avenue, a video camera that looked south. That camera is the only one specified in that passage of the report. 

At approximately 10:00 [on August 12] at Detective [Name's] direction, Detective [Name] and Detective [Name] drove to the [address] block of West Florissant Avenue. After arriving, they conducted a canvass of area businesses.  

Detective attempted to make contact with an employee at [address] West Florissant Avenue, a business identified [as Business Name]. She spoke with [Employee, who] said the business was equipped with several exterior video surveillance cameras, one of which was focused on the drive-thru located on the south side of the building.  

Detective requested video surveillance footage from 11:00 am. through 12:30 pm. on August 9, 2014.  [Employee] provided the footage on a CD. Detective later packaged the video footage on CD as evidence and released it to the Saint Louis County Property Control Unit. 

[Pages 76 - 77]

This business must be the one that is located on the north side of Canfield Drive near its intersection with West Florissant Avenue. The only camera that interested the investigators was the that looked south onto Canfield Drive. In the above photograph, this is the business that is north of Quick Trip Mart (labeled on the photograph). 

The Quick Trip Mart was destroyed by rioters after the incident, so the investigators could not obtain any surveillance film from its facilities. 

Detective [Name] attempted to make contact with an employee at  [address number] West Florissant Avenue, a business identified as [Quick Trip Mart].  She spoke with [QTM Employee, who] said the business was equipped with video surveillance cameras; however, they had been destroyed during the rioting on Sunday, August 10, 2014. 

[Pages 77-78]

Therefore, the video camera that filmed or photographed the Monte Carlo after the incident must have been placed on the business on the north side of Canfield Drive. Because Johnson said he had stood next to a white Monte Carlo and talked with its occupants, the investigators studying that camera's film looked for and found such a car. 

The interview of Passenger on August 22 stimulated the investigators to search for MC Owner in the following days. 

The transcript (page 1) of the August 9 interview of MC Owner specified her name, birthday and Social Number. However, the interview took place at her acquaintance's home, not MC Owner's own home, and so the transcript does not record MC Owner's home address or telephone number. Also, the transcript does not describe her car.

It seems from the following excerpts of the investigation report that the investigators found in traffic-ticket records a white Monte Carlo whose male owner and female co-owner lived in Northwinds Apartment Complex. As we will see, the co-owners were son and mother. Passenger had told investigators that the car was owned by a woman who lived in that complex.  

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014, at approximately 8:30 a.m., Detective [Name] conducted a law enforcement computer check on [all white Monte Carlo cars in the traffic-ticket database]. 

Detective [Name] observed that on [a particular date, a white Monte Carlo] was ticketed in a [location] bearing Missouri license plate [number] by the Police Department. Detective [Name] noted this matched the description of the [Monte Carlo] captured on video surveillance on Canfield Drive at the approximate time of the incident. 

[Page 151]

Based on that traffic-ticket record, a detective went to the car owners' address. The detective learned from a neighbor that the car owners had moved out a few days earlier. This departure still was unknown to the apartment complex's property manager.

At approximately 10:00 Detective [Name] and Detective [Name] drove to the Northwinds Apartment Complex just east of the Canfield Green Apartment Complex. There, detectives contacted Property Manager [Name, who] was provided the names of [the the Monte Carlo's owner] and [co-owner] and asked if these people were listed as tenants. [Property Manager] stated [the owner] was listed as living at [a particular address] within the Northwinds Apartment complex. 

Detective [Name] and Detective [Name] drove to and knocked at the [next] door. At the door, a neighbor, who wished to remain anonymous, stated a male and female did live at this apartment, but moved a few days prior. Detectives [Name and Name] asked this anonymous neighbor what type of vehicle they drove, and she stated an older [Monte Carlo]. 

This concluded the investigation at the Northwinds Apartment Complex,  

A source of information who wished to remain anonymous indicated a more recent address for [MC Owner's son] was possibly [another particular address].  

[Page 153] 

This anonymous source might be MC Owner's neighbor or might be Passenger or his friend (who told his father, who told the NAACP) or might be MC Owner's acquaintance (at whose home a detective found MC Owner on August 9) or the young man who tipped the detective to come to the the acquaintances' home.

I speculate that MC Owner fled her home because she learned that Passenger had been interviewed on August 22 by law-enforcement investigators. When detectives came to MC Owner's home on August 27, a neighbor said that MC Owner had "moved a few days prior".

When detectives went to the address that they had received from the anonymous source, they learned that MC Owner indeed was living there. They learned also that MC Owner's car was "being worked on" (being painted a different color?).

At approximately 12:10 pm, Detective [Name] and Detective [Name] drove to [the address provided by the anonymous source] in an attempt to contact [MC Owner]. They arrived at the residence at approximately 12:30 pm. There, detectives knocked at the front door and were contacted by a female who identified herself as [Resident].

Detectives [Name and Name] asked [Resident] if they could speak with [Driver's son]. [Resident] stated [that Driver's son] was not home because he was at work. [Resident]  said she and [Driver's son] and [Driver] reside at [this address] with her [husband?]. [Resident] stated she and [Driver's son] recently moved from [the apartment in Northwinds Apartment Complex]. 

[Resident] also confirmed [that MC Owner and her son owned a Monte Carlo] but the [Monte Carlo] was being worked on. Detectives provided [Resident] with a telephone contact number for [MC Owner] to call when [MC Owner] got home. [Resident] stated she would give [MC Owner] the message to call detectives. 

Detectives departed at approximately 12:20 pm. 

[Pages 155-156]

Although the detectives wanted to talk only with MC Owner, the person who subsequently called was some other male. I will guess here that he was Resident's husband, although he might be a boyfriend, male relative or simply a male apartment mate. 

At approximately 1:00 pm, Detective [Name] was contacted via telephone by [Resident's husband, who] indicated [he] could meet with detectives at [Resident's home].

At approximately 1:55 pm, Detective [Name] and Detective [name] arrived at [Resident's home].  

[Resident's son] contacted [Resident] who invited detectives inside the residence. Detectives [Name and Name] explained to [Resident's husband] that AUSA [Assistant US Attorney Name] and [FBI] Special Agent [Name] were also driving to [Resident's home] to contact [Driver]. 

Detective [Name] asked [Resident's husband] if he owned a [white Monte Carlo]. [Resident's husband] stated [that Driver] and [her] son owned the [Monte Carlo] and drove the [Monte Carlo] for work. Detective [Name] asked if [Driver and her son] lived at [the Northwinds address] and [Resident's husband] stated [Driver and her son ] did, but they recently moved to the residence at [where Resident and her husband lived] from the [the Northwinds address]. 

AUSA [Name] and Special Agent [Name] arrived at at approximately 2:00 pm. Special Agent [Name] served [Resident's husband] with a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena, and all parties departed the residence. 

[Page 156]

I speculate that because investigators were sure that MC Owner was evading them, they applied pressure on her indirectly, through her host (Resident's husband), by issuing a subpoena to her host. This subpoena then compelled MC Owner to provide her phone number to investigators and to move back to her own apartment in the Northwinds Apartment Complex. However, she continued to evade through September by not answering any phone calls that investigators made to her number.

When Passenger testified to the grand jury on September 25, the prosecutor mentioned that MC Owner never answered investigators' phone calls. 

Prosecutor  Did you ever -- after [MC Owner] dropped you off [on August 9] -- have you ever had a conversation with her about what the two of you witnessed?

Passenger  Yeah, basically every day from when we see it on TV. I mean, you know, not trying to put things together, but seeing things on the TV that is just crazy stuff going on just back and forth, and back and forth. 

Prosecutor  I'm not trying to suggest you were trying to get your stories together, the reason I ask is [MC Owner] hasn't been returning calls. Do you talk to her about that we would like her [to respond]? You ever talk about coming in and talking about this? 

Passenger  Yeah, but you know, she works every day, deal with kids every day. 

Prosecutor  Do you think if we could have her come in at a time that it didn't interrupt her work? Do you think she would come in or is she just not wanting to be involved? She doesn't return calls. 

Passenger  I guess, I don't know how she really feels about it now. I haven't just straight up and down asked her. 

[Pages 199 - 200]

MC Owner did not appear to be re-questioned by law-enforcement officials until October 13 -- more than two months after her brief August 9 interview. 

The Monte Carlo's driver and passenger evaded investigators

MC Owner was interviewed by a detective of the Saint Louis County Police Department on August 9, 2014, from 6:40 to 6:49 p.m., less than seven hours after Michael Brown was killed.  

She herself did not contact investigators. Rather, without her knowledge or approval, a casual acquaintance informed the police that she had witnessed the killing. The detective contacted her five minutes after the acquaintance provided the tip. The detective described the circumstances of that interview. (I have filled in the whited-out space.)

At approximately 6:35 pm, Detective [Name] was re-contacted by [MC Owner's acquaintance] who indicated he had located another person who claimed to have witnessed the entire incident. [MC Owner's acquaintance] directed Detective [Name] to [3000 block] Canfield Drive where he contacted a witness who identified herself as [MC Owner].  

At approximately 6:40 pm, Detective Moore spoke with [MC Owner] who indicated she was a witness to the incident. ..... 

[MC Owner] agreed to complete an audio recording of her account of the incident. A department-issued digital recorder was used to capture the statement. [MC Owner]'s audio statement was later transferred from the digital recorder to a CD which was packaged as evidence and released to the Saint Louis County Property Control Unit. .... 

The interview with was completed at approximately 6:49 pm. 

[Page 46-47]

The transcript of that brief interview, which lasted only 8½ minutes, is here. 

The next time MC Owner was interviewed by investigators was more than two months later, on October 13. The reason so much time passed was that she evaded the investigators' attempts to question her again. 

MC Passenger likewise did not want to provide information to investigators. He feared that someone ("they") might assume he knew "much more" about the incident. 

Almost two weeks passed, until August 22, when he was convinced by the local NAACP office to provide information to investigators. Later, MC Passenger told the grand jury how he reluctantly, eventually agreed to be interviewed:

Prosecutor  You actually spoke to the police for the first time on August 22nd.  What was going on between August 9th and August 22nd? As far as you knew, there were people saying "hands up", and you'd seen it. What was going on in your mind about why wouldn't you come forward and tell the police what you saw?

MC Passenger  I don't know. Just the thought, I guess, just being there really. I didn't want to get into it, you know.

Prosecutor  Didn't want to be involved? 

MC Passenger  Yeah, just be involved, you know. Just seeing what was going on on TV every day ..... You never know how people react to certain things. Did you know this?  

Or you might know much more, so they could be after you. People are crazy out here, so they might come for you first if you say something.

Prosecutor  Sure. But at some point you got together with the police. So how is it that the police knew to contact you? 

MC Passenger  Well, a friend of mine, his name is [Friend] -- his daddy knows Mike Brown's people, and they wanted to talk to me ... His daddy got in contact with some guy, and he knew some guy from the NAACP. I guess they gave him my number, and then they contacted me.

It took me a couple days from then to even go talk to them. ....

Prosecutor  Your friend's dad arranged for that [the NAACP office] to be a meeting place for you?

MC Passenger  I guess he just wanted me to talk to them. I told them [his friend's dad and the dad's friend] I didn't want to get into it, so I didn't tell them either. .... I still didn't say nothing to them. And he ended up giving my number to somebody [at the NAACP], and they ended up calling me.

Prosecutor  You didn't give him a detailed statement of what happened, did you? 

MC Passenger  ... I ended up giving them [the NAACP] a statement because that's where I was going to -- the NAACP. 

Prosecutor  Did you give them [the NAACP ] a statement before you talked to the police or after you talked to the police?

MC Passenger  Before.  

Prosecutor  I wanted to know if you felt pressured in some way to come forward and say something? 

MC Passenger  No, I didn't want to just not say nothing ... [not] talk to the NAACP, because I know that [organization]. 

It [remaining silent] didn't feel right no more. I know people are looking for statements out here. So I just felt after the stuff started calming down is when I calmed down. I realized [I had] to say something.

[Pages 193 - 198]

MC Passenger testified to the grand jury on September 25. At the testimony's end, the prosecutor asked him to help persuade MC Owner to answer more questions. The prosecutor complained that MC Owner never answered investigators' phone calls. 

Prosecutor  Did you ever -- after [MC Owner] dropped you off [on August 9] -- have you ever had a conversation with her about what the two of you witnessed?

MC Passenger  Yeah, basically every day from when we see it on TV. I mean, you know, not trying to put things together, but seeing things on the TV that is just crazy stuff going on just back and forth, and back and forth. 

Prosecutor  I'm not trying to suggest you were trying to get your stories together, the reason I ask is [MC Owner] hasn't been returning calls. Do you talk to her about that we would like her [to respond]? You ever talk about coming in and talking about this? 

MC Passenger  Yeah, but you know, she works every day, deal with kids every day. 

Prosecutor  Do you think if we could have her come in at a time that it didn't interrupt her work? Do you think she would come in or is she just not wanting to be involved? She doesn't return calls. 

MC Passenger  I guess, I don't know how she really feels about it now. I haven't just straight up and down asked her. 

[Pages 199 - 200]

Then in response to a grand juror's question, MC Passenger confirmed that he likewise had not wanted to be interviewed by law-enforcement investigators.  Passenger hinted that he feared eventual "judgments" against himself.   

Grand Juror You said earlier that you really didn't want to get involved because you felt -- I know what you mean -- there are crazy people out there. 

MC Passenger  Uh-huh [yes]. 

Grand Juror  Were you afraid of the people, other witnesses, or afraid of the police or both? Whatever was your main concern holding you from coming forward? 

MC Passenger  No, this stuff is just the stuff that was going on every day -- how your mind back and forth, hopefully. 

Grand Juror  But you were concerned because your story may have been different than somebody else's and you were afraid that they may have been judgmental towards you? 

MC Passenger  Right -- judgments -- yeah, yeah. 

[Pages 200 - 201]

On October 13, three weeks after MC Passenger testified to the grand jury, MC Owner finally agreed to be interviewed by an FBI special agent. In that interview, she described the circumstances of the previous interview, which had taken place on the August 9, the day of the incident. 

Although MC Owner's own apartment was near Canfield Green, the neighborhood where the incident took place, she was staying in the home of an acquaintance who lived in another building near Canfield Green. The acquaintance was a friend of her mother. That acquaintance phoned MC Owner's mother, who then came to see MC Owner in the acquaintance's home. 

I speculate that MC Owner did not return to her own home because she feared that someone had seen her Monte Carlo at the incident. She feared that her license plate number had been recorded and that the police thus would find her at her own home. 

As it turned out, without her knowledge or agreement, a young man at the acquaintance's home, perhaps a next-door neighbor, called a detective to come interview MC Owner. When the detective arrived, he found MC Owner in front of the home of the neighbor of the acquaintance. Surprised by the detective's arrival, MC Owner assumed that someone indeed had recorded her license plate number at the scene and then had given that number to the detective. 

FBI SA  How did it come to you that you then met with the Saint Louis County Police detective?

MC Owner  Actually, I stay in that area at the time, and my Mom basically got the news. So, she came to see: was her daughter okay? So, in the process of seeing was her daughter okay, I was up in the house. The house is right before you get to Canfield Green. 

And one of the young men -- like I said, I don't know nobody over there -- he was the one that brought the police to me. .... Somebody was out there and probably remember my car or something, because he [the detective] came directly to me. 

I was on the front of the neighbors. I don't even know the people, but they stayed in the house right there. 

FBI SA  You said something about "brought him [the detective] to you"?

MC Owner  Actually, a young man. .... I didn't know him exactly. I've probably seen him around the complex, but I don't know him -- as talking to him on a daily basis. 

[Pages 25 - 26]

Although MC Owner and MC Passenger, both African-Americans, had been in the middle of the incident, which immediately became a national controversy about Whites' treatment of Blacks, neither of them wanted to identify themselves or provide their information to law-enforcement investigators. 

MC Owner and MC Passenger evaded investigators persistently for weeks. 

--------

All the occupants of all the other vehicles that eventually appeared behind the Monte Carlo likewise evaded the investigators. They ducked down in their cars while police officer Darren Wilson was chasing and shooting at Michael Brown. After the shooting, they drove away immediately, and they still have not reported to investigators, to the present day. 

The Monte Carlo escaped around Building 18

A 27-year-old bi-racial male doing a repair project watched the incident from a house (not an apartment building) that was located on Canfield Drive. The grand jury designated him as Witness 10, and the US Justice Department designated him as Witness 102. I will call him House Repairman.

Despite his distance from the incident, the Justice Department's report about the killing declared that he was a credible witness.

... all of Witness 102's statements were materially consistent with each other, with physical and forensic evidence, and with other credible witness accounts. Witness 102 does not have a criminal history. Therefore, if called as a defense witness in a prosecution of Darren Wilson, this witness's account would not be vulnerable to meaningful cross-examination. Accordingly, after a thorough review of all the evidence, federal prosecutors determined his account to be credible and likewise determined that a jury appropriately would credit his potential testimony. 

[Pages 28 - 29]

House Repairman saw Michael Brown struggling through the police vehicle's window but did not see Dorian Johnson at the police vehicle during that struggle. (Johnson already had run away from the police vehicle before House Repairman began watching.)  House Repairman did not see Johnson get into the Monte Carlo.

House Repairman provided a unique eyewitness description of the Monte Carlo's departure from the scene.  

HR = House Repairman
PV = Police Vehicle
MC = Monte Carlo

To see the above image, without my annotations, in a larger size, go to this webpage. 

In an interview with two Saint Louis County Police Department detectives on August 11, 2014, two days after the incident, House Repairman indicated that the Monte Carlo turned left and thus stayed inside the Canfield Green apartment complex rather than drive into the residential area where he himself was working. 

It was a blue Monte Carlo, a newer model Monte Carlo two-door. It was closer [than the police vehicle] to the scene where the [fatal] shooting was at that occurred. 

They [the Monte Carlo occupants] then drove off and made a left into the apartments and drove around the apartment and then came and stopped. 

[Page 5]

Later in that same, House Repairman elaborated about the Monte Carlo. He said that he saw only a male driver in the Monte Carlo when it subsequently drove around the apartment building. 

Detective  Do you know how many people were in that car or who was driving?

House Repairman  No, I’m not sure. I just seen a driver from a distance. I couldn’t get a description. I know he was a black African-American.

Detective  You said he, so it was a male in the car?

House Repairman  Yeah, it was a he.

Detective  Okay. Do you know if there was anybody else in the car?

House Repairman  No, I’m not sure.

Detective  Alright. And the individual with the dread locks …. He went where?

House Repairman  The first point was I seen him [Johnson] with the suspect [Brown] when they were still alive together. [House Repairman had seen Johnson walking with Brown to the store, before noon.]

The next time I seen him was when after everything already took place where Mr. Brown was fatally injured and he [Johnson] came from nowhere and ran across the street. It would be at the point where he ran across will be in front of the squad car. …..And, he cuts across and yells “They killed him, they killed him.”

I’m not sure if he -- at that point when he was yelling --[was] at the blue Monte Carlo, was at the same point. I’m not sure if he was just yelling it, just to be yelling it, or if he was telling them in the car that they killed him. And [I’m not sure] that he never entered their car or went up to that car. He was just yelling.

And he ran up through the back fields of Canfield.

[Pages 13 - 14]

To understand this passage fully, keep in mind that House Repairman was talking about three occasions when he did see or might have seen the Monte Carlo.

1) He saw the Monte Carlo when it was stopped near the police vehicle during the shooting incident. 

2) He saw the Monte Carlo when, after the fatal gunshots, it turned left off of Canfield Drive and drove around Building 18. 

3) He thought – but was not sure – that he might have seen the Monte Carlo again at the same area on Canfield Drive a while later, when Johnson returned to Canfield Drive and yelled. House Repairman said, "I’m not sure if he [Johnson] -- at that point when he was yelling --[was] at the blue Monte Carlo, was at the same point." 

I think that House Repairman had the second of those occasions in mind when he told the detective that only a male driver was in the Monte Carlo. The second occasion was perhaps the only occasion when he was close enough to the Monte Carlo that he could discern the car’s occupants.

If so, then the male passenger must have taken over the driving role before the Monte Carlo turned left off of Canfield Drive. At the same time, the female driver must have moved to another seat and ducked down so that she was not visible. The moment when the male and female switched places must have been when the car was on lawn, was driving around Wilson’s police vehicle, and was confronted by police vehicles arriving from the west to the scene. MC Passenger testified that in this particular situation he got out of the Monte Carlo and looked back at Wilson standing over Brown’s body – “I ended up getting out [of the Monte Carlo], you know, to look back and whatnot”.

------

In contrast to House Repairman's observations, MC Passenger told investigators that the Monte Carlo drove far away immediately, while the backup police cars were arriving.

Detective  Where did you guys go?

MC Passenger  Right up Ferguson [Avenue], while all the rest of them [backup police cars] came. It's a long street, on the side of Ferguson Market -- that street, Ferguson [Avenue].

[Page 5]

MC Passenger told the grand jury that the Monte Carlo drove straight on Canfield Drive, turned left onto West Florissant Avenue and right onto Ferguson Avenue. Then MC Owner drove him directly to his home in Pagedale (about five miles southwest).

The passenger said the Monte Carlo drove out Canfield Drive
while the backup police cars still were arriving.

He said the Monte Carlo eventually drove him west on Ferguson Avenue,
on the way to Pagedale, where he lived. 

Prosecutor  Did you drive straight out Canfield to West Florissant? 

MC Passenger  Yeah. ….

Prosecutor  After you left the scene, where did you guys go?

MC Passenger  … I told her [MC Owner] to take me home. We went up on the side …. of Ferguson Market. Is that Ferguson [Avenue] or something like that?

Prosecutor  So you went out to West Florissant, then you make a left?

MC Passenger  [We] made a left and quick right by that store [Ferguson Market and Liquor] …. And went on out to Pagedale.  

[Pages 190 - 191]

.

The Sequence of Events on Canfield Drive

Police Officer Darren Wilson estimated in his testimony to the grand jury that the entire incident lasted less than one minute.

Prosecutor  How many minutes or seconds from  the time that you saw them walking down the street until Michael Brown is dead in the street? 

Wilson  I would say less than one minute. 

Prosecutor  Less than one minute?  

Wilson  Uh-huh [yes].  

[Page 272]

Wilson estimated the same one-minute duration also in earlier statements to investigators. 

------------------

Near-Sighted and MC Passenger estimated that the confrontation between Wilson and Michael Brown at the police vehicle lasted about about 15 seconds. I will use their estimates. Near-Sighted said also that Dorian Johnson ran away very early in that 15-second period. 

According to the dispatcher's Event Report (page 17), Wilson's initial call about his encounter occurred at 12:01:50 ("Open"), and Policeman McDonald arrived at the scene 32 seconds later, at 12:02:22 ("Arrival"). Policeman McDonald said he heard the final four gunshots when he was driving through Canfield Drive's 3000 block. I will estimate that he heard the gunshots at around 12:02:15.

Combining the above times provides the following rough one-minute time-line:

THIS ARTICLE WILL BE RE-WRITTEN, AND THE TIME-LINE WILL BE ADJUSTED.

12:01:15 = Wilson encounters Johnson and Brown walking in street

12:01:20 = Wilson drives backward and blocks Johnson and Brown

12:01:25 = Brown begins 15-second attack on Wilson. Johnson walks backward to curb.

12:01:30 = Johnson runs away.

12:01:35 = Strange, loud noise at police vehicle attracts attention

12:01:40 = Wilson fires first gunshot from inside police vehicle

12:01:43 = Brown runs away from the police vehicle

12:01:45 = Wilson fires second gunshot from inside his police vehicle

12:01:50 = Wilson, sitting in his police vehicle, calls the dispatcher

12:01:55 = Wilson begins chasing Brown down the street

12:02:15 = final four gunshots

After Johnson ran away from the police vehicle at 12:01:30, he ran quite a distance during the ten seconds until the first gunshot at 12:01:40. He ran to the front of 9391 Canfield Drive and then across the street to the area near the tree.

Johnson was standing behind the Monte Carlo when Brown ran past it at about 12:01:45.

THIS ILLUSTRATION IS WRONG. THIS ARTICLE WILL BE RE-WRITTEN.

PV = Police Vehicle
....
MC = Monte Carlo (movement backward after the first gunshot)
....
Red line = Dorian Johnson's run
from the police vehicle
to the Monte Carlo

I elaborate the sequence of events related to Johnson's run as follows. 

1) Johnson gathered the cigarillos from the police vehicle's roof and from Brown's left hand (12:01:27). He backed away from the vehicle to the south sidewalk (12:01:29). Johnson perceived that Brown essentially was just holding the door shut so that Johnson could escape with the cigarillos. Then Johnson ran (12:01:30) laughing to the front of 9391 Canfield Drive (12:01:35). MC Passenger watched that part of Johnson's run. 

2) Johnson and MC Passenger heard a loud noise (12:01:35). Johnson stopped running and looked back. MC Passenger turned his attention away from Johnson and back to the police vehicle. Visiting Sister-in-Law heard a loud noise and began watching the police vehicle. 

3) Johnson realized that the situation might not be just a cigarillo-hide-and-seek game any more. Johnson could not see Brown or Wilson, who are on the vehicle's far side. Johnson ran north across the street to look from that different perspective. He stopped in the area between the street's north sidewalk and the tree (12:01:38). At this point, Balcony Brother noticed Johnson.

4) Immediately after the first gunshot (12:01:40), MC Owner backed up the Monte Carlo for a short distance and stopped. MC Passenger opened his door, and both MC Owner and MC Passenger ducked down.

5) When Johnson saw the Monte Carlo's passenger door open, he ran toward the car's passenger side, intending to hide inside the car. During that run, Balcony Brother retreated from his balcony back into his apartment.

6) Johnson reached the Monte Carlo's passenger side (12:01:43). He stopped close behind MC Passenger, who was leaning out and hiding behind his open door. 

7) Brown, having been wounded by the first gunshot, punched Wilson again through the police vehicle's open window. When Brown saw Wilson trying to un-jam his gun, Brown ran (12:01:43) around the police vehicle and began running down Canfield Drive. 

8) Wilson un-jammed his pistol and, in order to verify its correct operation, fired (12:01:45) a test bullet through his open window into the dirt beyond the street. Brown was running past the Monte Carlo back end. Brown saw Johnson and said, "keep running, bro'". Johnson saw blood splatters on Brown's right arm and on the right side of Brown's shirt. Johnson guessed mistakenly that Brown had been shot in the upper-right chest.  

9) Johnson ducked down, next to the Monte Carlo's passenger side, behind MC Passenger (12:01:47).

10) Wilson sent a radio call, "Put me on Canfield with two and send another car" (12:01:50), got out of his vehicle and started chasing Brown (12:01:55).

11) Wilson ran past the Monte Carlo (12:01:57)

12) MC Passenger climbed into the Monte Carlo's rear seat, enabling Johnson  to climb into the Monte Carlo and hide down in front of the passenger seat (12:02:00) Thus hiding, Johnson did not see the following event. 

12) Brown stopped running for a moment. Having heard the second gunshot, he turned around to look back. He put his hand onto a car that was behind the Monte Carlo. He kicked off his flip-flops and continued running.  (I will tell this event in a later post.)

13) Balcony Brother returned from inside his apartment back out onto his balcony (12:02:05) and focused on Brown and Wilson.  Balcony Brother assumed, but did not see, that Johnson must have disappeared into the Monte Carlo. 

15) Brown stopped and turned around. He began charging at Wilson (12:02:09). 

Johnson lied about when the Monte Carlo drove away

Both MC Owner and MC Passenger testified that they watched Brown fall dead. After that, they drove around Wilson's police vehicle and away from the scene. They said also that as they were driving on the lawn around Wilson’s vehicle, arriving back-up police vehicles almost collided with their car.

Contradicting their accounts, Dorian Johnson testified to the grand jury that the Monte Carlo drove away while Brown still was running away, a considerable time before Brown fell dead. After the Monte Carlo drove away, two more cars remained along the street.

Furthermore, Johnson said that Wilson tried to shoot Brown in the back twice before Brown stopped and turned around. Johnson invented these gunshots at Brown's back because Johnson did not see this part of the event. Johnson actually was hiding down inside the Monte Carlo, which did not move away until after Brown fell dead. 

Johnson  I watched the officer [Wilson] walk past [the Monte Carlo]. He never even looked at me. He just kept walking past, and I’m watching him and I’m in awe. I’m like, "okay, is he looking for us or is he going after him [Brown]?" 

Everything is in my head is just racing real fast because of the gunshot [at Brown's back]. I’m hyperventilating. My heart is pounding.  

After he [Wilson] walked past me, I kind of stand up more. I’m trying to ask the people in the first car [the Monte Carlo]: "Could I please just let me in the vehicle. I stay in the same complex. You can just drop me off."  

They said no, and they pulled off on the sidewalk.  

Prosecutor  Where did they pull to? 

Johnson  The first car [the Monte Carlo]? They didn’t drive through the driveway. They pulled on the sidewalk to drive past the police officer [i.e. police vehicle].  

Once they pulled off, I was even more visible now. I’m standing straight. The officer’s back is towards me. Big Mike’s back is towards me and the officer, because he [Brown] is running away.  

I’m watching the officer. He’s walking, and Big Mike gets past the third car, the final car before the second shot was fired. It was the second shot fired [at Brown's back], pow. The officer shot. I don’t know if it hit. I wasn’t that close to see.  

The second time he [Wilson] shot [at Brown's back], I didn’t know if it hit him [Brown] or not, but he kind of jerked, and that’s when he stopped running. He just kind of stopped and turned around at the officer. And now he’s face-to-face with the officer, but not so close.  

Now, Big Mike is probably, he’s not fully at the driveway, but he gets probably to the curb of the driveway when the second shot [at Brown's back]. And now at the second shot, the officer …. is passing the third vehicle.  

Prosecutor  Where are you? …. You are at the second vehicle [behind the Monte Carlo]?  

Johnson  Yes, but I’m more over to the side now, because like I said, I was trying to talk to the people in the front car [the Monte Carlo]. I was on the side of their car when I was trying to talk to them. After they pulled off, I had to stand watching the officer pace towards Big Mike.  

[Pages 119-121]

MC Owner and MC Passenger both were absolutely clear that the Monte Carlo backed up a short distance after the first gunshot was fired in the the police vehicle and then remained there until after Brown fell dead. MC Owner watched the final, fatal gunshots in her rear-view mirror, and MC Passenger watched through the back window. Only after they both saw Brown fall dead did MC Owner drive the Monte Carlo around Wilson's police vehicle in order to leave the scene. 

MC Owner's statements are here, here and here (beginning on page 70). MC Passenger's statements are here and here (beginning on page 153). You can easily find the many passages where they described how they watched the final, fatal gunshots, watched Brown fall dead, and then afterwards drove around Wilson's police vehicle.

--------

As just one example, MC Passenger told the grand jury that Johnson still was asking to get into the Monte Carlo after Brown had been shot dead. 

MC Passenger  The first thing he [Johnson] said: "Can I get in? Can you take me down here?"

I'm like: "No, I don't know you."

[Johnson was] just some random guy that said, "hey, man, take me somewhere." 

Prosecutor  The point where Dorian was at the car, asking to get in, the shooting had already occurred?

MC Passenger  Right. 

[Pages 177 - 178]

--------

Also, other witnesses -- Michael Brady and his fiance, whose testimony I will describe in future posts -- confirmed that the Monte Carlo remained until after Brown fell dead.

Johnson's story that the Monte Carlo drove away and left him exposed while Brown still was running away is a lie. The purpose of this lie was to conceal the fact that Johnson climbed into the Monte Carlo while Brown was running away. 

MC Owner and MC Passenger concealed that same fact by telling a different lie -- that they both blacked out while Brown was running away.