The answer is perfectly clear to anyone who reads the testimony. The more relevant question: Is this complete bull**** posted by Sundance even defensible in light of that testimony?
"#4) Lastly, and this one REALLY stuns me, in that no-one in the media has picked up on it: why is Dorian Johnson allowed to get away with denying his physical involvement in attacking Darren Wilson?
Especially when there is absolute physical evidence that proves Dorian was an active participant in the physical assault."
All Sundance is doing is pointing out the questions Johnson wasn’t asked. For example, he was never asked how he lost his bracelet at the scene of Wilson’s encounter with Brown. Johnson was never asked about the hours of unaccounted time/massive gaps in his description of what he and Brown did before and after robbing the store. Was Johnson charged with perjury for creating the hands up don’t shoot myth? No. Why not?
Sundance asked legitimate questions, and they largely boil down to why Johnson got completely off the hook. He was a party to the robbery, and was present during the assault. At a minimum, he could have been asked how his bracelet ended up on the street at the scene of the crime.
If you like the way Johnson was completely let off the hook, fine. Or if you can find even one—just one—comment Sundance made that was not absolutely supportive of Wilson (I mean directly, not in terms of the bracelet discussion, which is legitimate and a separate issue) post it. But this mountain you’re making of a molehill is a waste of time. I would personally like to have seen Johnson asked about his bracelet. That doesn’t mean I don’t support Wilson. It just means Johnson should also have been held accountable.