EXCLUSIVE - 'It's murder and they will feel the wrath of God's vengeance': Michael Brown's family react angrily to leak of Darren Wilson's testimony

• Officer Wilson told grand jury that he felt in fear for his life when he was attacked by Michael Brown before shooting him dead in Ferguson, Missouri
• Officials said that the testimony and evidence was 'helpful' to his case
• Brown's aunt Sheryl Davis angrily told MailOnline that he'll suffer retribution in 'mighty way' 

By Daniel Bates for MailOnline

Published: 14:29 EST, 20 October 2014 | Updated: 23:27 EST, 20 October 2014

The family of Michael Brown have said that the cop who shot him dead will 'feel the wrath of God's vengeance' after the officer claimed he was acting in self defense.

Sheryl Davis, Brown's aunt, told MailOnline that she believes Darren Wilson committed murder and that he will suffer retribution in a 'mighty way'.

She said that Wilson's actions were 'evil' and that he will be punished by a higher power for what he did - even if he is cleared.

Anger: Sheryl Davis, left, with husband Eric, told MailOnline that Wilson will suffer retribution in a 'mighty way'

Her comments are the most outspoken yet from Brown's family since Wilson's account of what happened was published in the New York Times at the weekend.

The testimony - and alleged forensic evidence - has been described by experts as helpful to his defense and has provoked fresh outrage from the teenager's family and supporters.

Wilson shot dead Brown, 18, on August 9, in Ferguson, a suburb of St Louis in Missouri, sparking nearly two weeks of violent protests and rioting.

'Self defense': Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson says he feared for his life as he shot Michael Brown

Struggle: According to FBI analysis Brown's blood was found inside Officer Wilson's patrol car. the cop claims he wrestled with Brown in the car and was in fear of his life. But the account is disputed

Unrest has continued since then as a grand jury decides whether it will indict Wilson. A decision is expected next month.

Speaking to MailOnline Davis said: 'It's murder and they will feel and see the wrath of God's vengeance come upon them in a mighty way, just as he promised all who do evil in his sight.'

Wilson's account gave the first insight into what he told the grand jury during his four-hour testimony in September, a process which is held in secret.

He supposedly said that Brown pushed him back into his police SUV as he was trying to get out and pinned him down.

At that point Wilson reached for his gun and fired two shots, one of which hit Brown - his blood was found inside the car.

The account did not explain why Wilson then shot Brown five more times in the front as, according to some witnesses, he put his hands in the air to surrender.

Solidarity: Protesters are pictured here in Ferguson Monday night continuing a vigil for Michael Brown

Tensions: Police officers watch over the residents who have taken to the streets again, more than two months after the shooting

Brown's supporters are worried that Wilson is trying to exploit the law in Missouri which allows a police officer more leeway if they feel they are under threat. 

Wilson's account also flatly contradicts that of a number of witnesses including Brown's friend Dorian Johnson, who was standing next to him at the time.

Johnson has said that Wilson was the aggressor and grabbed Brown's throat before pulling out his gun and threatening to shoot.

But another witness, whose name has been withheld, has also reportedly told the grand jury that Brown did not have his hands above his head when Wilson shot him but instead they were 'out to his sides.'

He also said Brown 'staggered toward Wilson despite commands to stop' and that 'the two were about 20 to 25 feet apart when the last shots were fired.'

Among those who have already spoken out to attack Wilson's statement is Benjamin Crump, the attorney for Brown's family.

He has said that Wilson's account should 'not be taken as gospel'.

He said: 'He can say what he wants to say in front of a jury. They can listen to all the evidence and the people can have it transparent so they know that the system works for everybody.

Fervent: A woman holds up a sign protesting the treatment of black people by law enforcement

Memorial: Neighbors wait by a memorial set up on Canfield Street, Ferugson - the spot where Brown was killed

'The officer's going to say whatever he's going to say to justify killing an unarmed kid.'

The Rev Al Sharpton also called it a ‘Michael Dunn defense,' referring the Florida man who was convicted of shooting dead a black teenager because he was playing music too loudly.

Sharpton has said: 'It didn't work in Florida and it shouldn't work in Missouri’.

Residents of Ferguson fear that violence could return to their streets if Wilson is not indicted - which is a very real possibility.

The New York Times reported that, according to officials with knowledge of the grand jury hearing, the forensic evidence does appear to support Wilson's account.

Another issue is the potential civil rights prosecution brought by the federal government after Attorney General Eric Holder began an FBI investigation.

Touching interview with parents of police-slain Michael Brown

Condemnation: Al Sharpton on Sunday hit out at Wilson's version of events. And the Brown family lawyer, Benjamin Crump, said: 'The officer's going to say whatever he's going to say to justify killing an unarmed kid'

Rev Al Sharpton calls for justice at Michael Brown's funeral

Peter Joy, a professor at the Washington University of Law in St Louis, has told MailOnline that a charge of civil rights abuse would be a much higher standard than murder or manslaughter.

He said that this is because the jury would have to be certain Wilson intended to violate Brown's civil rights by shooting him dead. 

He said: 'The federal government does not step in to pursue a civil rights conviction unless they believe it was an intentional abuse. 

'There are some criminal charges that don't involve that kind of mental state, like murder.

'For example anger. They can be guilty of acting knowingly and recklessly, but it is different to intentionally violating a civil right.' 

Comments (398)

Share what you think

• Newest
• Oldest
• Best rated
• Worst rated

 View all

The comments below have been moderated in advance.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

Add your comment

Enter your comment

By posting your comment you agree to our house rules.

Submit Comment Clear

Who is this week's top commenter? Find out now