The US investigation of Michael Brown's killing concluded he had had a fight with the thug while the thug was still in his car, and also that he was facing the thug when he was shot dead.

I am concerned about judging witnesses as credible because their testimony agrees with "other testimony". There may have been a more objective basis not made clear in the article, but the words of the article are consistent with calling witnesses "credible" if they support the conclusion that the investigators have reached.

However, the evidence from bloodstains seems to show it was not murder.