I don't know anything about this case one way or the other, and I don't pretend to.
But there's a fundamental problem with the system here.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you're a young lady who witnessed the whole thing, from beginning to end, and that what you saw was that the police gunned down an innocent man with absolutely no provocation and then high-fived each other and laughed about it afterwards.
So now somebody comes up to you and says something professional and polite and standard, but this is what you hear: "Excuse me, Miss. I'm with the government--you know, the folks who suddenly murder innocent people in broad daylight in front of dozens of witnesses for any reason or no reason. We're holding an inquest about the shooting you witnessed. We government folks are pretty sure the officers--who, after all, also work for the government--acted properly, but we'd like to get your statement to verify it. Just a moment while I set up this video camera. Okay...now that we have your name and address, can you tell us what you saw?"
What would you say?
Would you tell the truth?
Why would you assume that anyone would?
I'm not saying that that's what
happened; I'm saying that if something like that
did happen--in the incident under consideration here or anywhere else--official inquest testimony attached to real names and addresses is not the place you're going to find it.
If you want the government well and truly and honestly investigated, you can't be having the government doing the investigation. It's silly.
