But, but he was such a good little sprout.
Posted on 10/30/2014 8:55:39 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
A forensic pathologist quoted in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch story about the shooting death of Michael Brown said some of her statements concerning the autopsy were taken out of context.
... Melinek said she did not assert that a gunshot wound on Brown's hand showed that he was reaching for Wilson's gun during a struggle while the officer was in a police SUV and Brown was standing at the driver's window, as the Post-Dispatch reported.
Melinek told the Washington Post that the autopsy facts could be viewed differently.
"Bullet trajectory analysis is complex, ad you cannot interpret autopsy reports in a vacuum" she wrote in an e-mail. "You need scene data and the witness statements. When a forensic expert says something "appears to be" or is "consistent with" the findings, that doesn't mean it is the only explanation. It means it is one possible explanation - one that fits the current forensic data. That opinion might change as other data comes to light.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Helping to soften the blow......
So what are the possibile explanations?
1.) Brown did not reach for the gun, but was shot.
2.) Brown reached for the gun and was shot.
All the witnesses say that there was a scuffle though.
Nonetheless, eyewitness testimony (including eyewitness testimony from another eyewitness - Officer Darren Wilson - tends to be unreliable.
IIRC, from the original reported denial by the pathologist, it struck me that she did not want to agree with the police version of the incident, but suggested that the evidence didn’t “jive” with St. Swisher’s accomplice’s version.
How could a (as-close-to-a-retraction-as-you-can-get retraction) from the Washington Post help to soften the blow, if the pre-retraction article from WaPo was supposedly meant to soften the blow?
Everything that I have read so far from her points to one thing: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s article posited one possible conclusion from her remarks which, according to her, they shouldn’t have done.
She hasn’t denied anything, but is out to coorect some bad reporting, and has asserted that her quotes were taken out of context and misrepresneted.
See, the evidence is completely consistent with Brown being on his knees, hands up, when shot.
Only a racist couldn't see what clearly happened.
2 possible explanations surrounding the scuffle (part B) of which Part A was listed in post #2:
Part B:
1.) There was a scuffle which led to Darren Wilson pulling his gun on Michael Brown.
2.) The scuffle was a reaction from Michael Brown to Darren Wilson pulling his gun on Brown.
I don’t see a retraction.
She’s saying that just because it jives with one person’s testimony, doesn’t mean it won’t fit with another person’s testimony as well.
The pathologist refers to the “back” of the arm and the “front” of the arm. Folks might be less confused if she used the terms “inside” and “outside” of the arm. That way, the low-IQ Yutes in America would be less likely to assume that the Gentle Giant was shot from the “back”.
You are conflating another part into this.
There A.) was the scuffle between the two, which all eyewitnesses agree upon (including those that agree with Wilson and those that don’t).
B.) Brown reached for Darren Wilson’s gun and was shot, or did not reach for his gun and was shot. Which then leads to two other possibilities: The scuffle led to Wilson pulling his gun out on Brown, or the scuffle came after the gun was pulled.
The part that you list is after all of this.
This part needs to be dealt with before that.
And no need to bring in racism. No one, not even a police oficer, has absolute credibility.
ALL eyewitness testimony (including eyewitnes testimony from the police officer, along witgh the eyewitness testimony from those who don’t agree with Wilson’s story) is subject to skepticism.
That way all bais can be avoided.
She is saying that there are multiple possibilities here as to what happened, something which the Post-Dispatch apparently did not fathom.
When the Post-Dispatch article originally stated that her analysis lined up with Darren Wilson’s account that was botched reporting on their part.
The Jolly Teen Giant attacked officer Wilson and was shot, several times. See how easy that was, no contortions to distort the facts.
The Post-Distpatch article was no more “botched reporting” than 90% of the reporting on this incident. When I read it, I just got the impression that her reading of the report was that it was consistent with Wilson’s version — which it is, apparently. What it does not do is PROVE Wilson’s version, or exclude all the non-Wilson versions.
The Post-Dispatch article was a lot more balanced than most of the articles bouncing off of it, IMHO.
Well, it goes without saying that before the shooting, Brown was being controlled by Wilson’s Jedi mind control, which forced him to steal the cigars and scuffle with Wilson, before he used his gentle giant strength to overcome Wilson’s mental grip and to flee.
I don’t see how you can ever disregard the charge of racism? Brown had likely suffered at least 50 micro-aggressions just that day.
But, but he was such a good little sprout.
clearly a case of Charlie Yankee alpha......
Michael Brown clearly robbed a store and assaulted the clerk, he then took his dangerous,aggressive bad attitude to the streets.
I understand that there are bad cops, people have been beaten up and/or killed. I was roughed up by a police officer in my youth (I am a WASP for full disclosure) on one occasion, had done nothing wrong
I understand that there are bad cops, bad everything, but clearly in this case the officer really was up against a aggressive angry fellow, he is clearly innocent.
A fair juror could never convict this officer after seeing the video, this case should never see the inside of a courtroom as far as I am concerned.
This guys attitude was going to get him killed, was just a matter of time. Not the officers fault
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.