You understand pretty much any testimony can be - and usually is - "disputed" and it doesn't mean it is wrong? "Disputed" just means somebody said "no, it is not so". Anybody can say that - just as anybody could have said they saw the police officer shooting Brown in the back, despite the autopsy finding no trace of that. Some did. That doesn't mean the officer actually shot Brown in the back with vanishing bullets.

>>> Brown was not armed in any way

I think it's time to lay that "not armed in any way" to rest. Most physically fit males - especially ones of Brown's physical build - are "armed" to cause serious physical harm, up to lethal, to many other people. People regularly harm and murder other people with their bare hands (or feet, etc.) - over 800 cases happen even year[1], btw about the same as rifles and shotguns taken together. Does it mean police is justified to shoot any male? Of course not, since means to do something not equals to doing something. But it does not mean that if somebody is not wielding a shotgun, he is automatically harmless. There are a lot of ways to cause harm to people, and some of them require nothing more but the will to do it and a bit of strength.

[1] http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.x...

Edit: I used the word "complexion" instead of "physical appearance" meaning: "General character, aspect, or appearance:" but it looks like people took it to mean "skin color". Of course I did not mean to refer to color of his skin, it's completely irrelevant, but rather to his physical build - i.e. height, weight and fitness. Looking at the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complexion) my meaning appears to be old one, and now it is used as "skin color". It didn't help that in my native tongue the same word also means "physical appearance". I certainly did not mean it that way, so sorry for misleading.