I read it. It is a great closing argument for the defense, but that is all it is. To get to her conclusion, one must weigh some testimony over other testimony, and not consider that there is others things that are unknown. While we appreciate that the testimony she chooses to accept is not inconsistent with the physical evidence, there is conflicting testimony and other explanations that are also not inconsistent with the physical evidence. It advocates a position that may or may not be true, because she takes liberty in filling in the blanks.
Too much of this thread involves people "filling in the blanks". My only point is to start with the foundational piece of what we can accept: the Grand Jury recommendation (though, we could, if we chose, pick that apart as well... but you have to start somewhere) and from that basis, highlight the fact much remains unknown (blank).
The GJ was asked to see if the evidence (as presented) in the matter was sufficient to document probable cause that one of several crimes (resulting in death occurred). Their findings, which were merely recommendations to the DA (and reflect the way the DA presented the case) were that there was not sufficient evidence to support probable cause and thus no charges should be filed. They may no other determination. They did not try the case nor challenge the evidence.
So, as a result of the GJ activity, we can continue with the PRESUMPTION of innocence of criminal wrong doing for Officer Wilson. Any other conclusion one wishes to come to is pure conjecture (though granted, some conjecture might be supportable) or otherwise speculative. In making your determinations as to what happened, you may think you are right, but the truth is, there is chance you are not.
While the GJ clearing Wilson of criminal wrongdoing may have sanctioned his legal right to kill Brown, it did not give him the moral kill Brown (that is to be "litigated" in the eternal court). The GJ clearing of Wilson might have relieved him of criminal culpability, it did not relieve him of responsibility (that will likely be litigated in civil court).
There are far more questions that remain..... those of you that pretend to know the answers to those questions are pretending or are deluded. Its ok to have an opinion; just respect the fact that your opinion can be wrong.
Wilson gets the Presumption of Innocence.... but, let me remind you that OJ Simpson also enjoys the presumption of innocence in the death of another Brown..... If we respect system of justice and the rule of law, both are equally valid.
Again, the only "FACT" about this case is the GJ determined that Wilson was not criminally culpable. Everything else is simply opinion.