“Ok, explain how any of the alleged irregularities could have destroyed evidence implicating Wilson and exonerating Brown? AND - do we really know that these sorts of “irregularities” aren’t fairly common in investigations?”
First, my concern is not so much about Wilson. The evidence of witnesses is clear. My concern is with a cavalier attitude toward investigating a shooting by a cop. There have been cases where cops treated an officer involved shooting at face value, only for information to come out after that showed it to be murder.
1. A cop shot a kid who tried to run him over with a car. Cops were taking it a face value, but a proper investigation learned the car was in reverse. Officer lied.
2. The cop who shot a guy for ‘lunging at him with a knife’. Other cops shared that story. None knew that a security video showed nothing of the sort. He was standing still when the officers fired on him.
As for what might have been lost?
“The grand jury transcripts revealed, for example, that the officers who interviewed Wilson immediately after the shooting did not tape the conversations.”
If guilty, he could have said something that later could be used against him, or at least catch him out.
“They also showed that an investigator from the medical examiner’s office opted not to take measurements at the crime scene and arrived there believing that what happened between Brown and Wilson was “self-explanatory.’’ “
That’s pretty cavalier for an investigation into a officer involved shooting. There is no way to even know what could be lost in such a mistake.
This isn’t a game. Procedures exist to dot the ‘i’s and cross the ‘t’s. Am I the only one who sees that they have a responsibility to be honest and diligent in their investigation of a fellow officer? Or is everyone here just fine with whitewashing shootings by cops?