Are you really that foolish? I didn’t say one would NEVER get abrasions, I said it is POSSIBLE for one NOT to get abrasions.
You are basing your entire conclusion on the lack of abrasions - it is faulty. Your entire argument is foolish, and your last post proves you don’t have the capacity to reach a logical conclusion - PERIOD.
The cite you give - the last line - is from the family’s lawyer, doing his best to spin the findings....the same guy, who a couple of paragraphs earlier states that the autopsy proves the witness accounts are true...that he was shot several times. This guy doesn’t bother to point out that it also disproved the “shot in the back” testimony...so I count his statements as very untrustworthy.
Two paragraphs up from the line you point out, is Dr. Badens statement about how many bullets went into the top of the head. Please read that and report back....
More big talk, but no explanation by GilesB on the downward trajectory of 2 wounds, no abrasions. Yawn
It’s an autopsy report. Now we’re being fickle with information huh? hahahahaa
You can easily read elsewhere the trajectory of a round from eye thru jaw to collarbone. Let’s not be coy.
“Brown had abrasions on his face from where he fell to the ground, but there was ‘otherwise no evidence of a struggle.’”
Again, research those findings, it’s in many articles, they are from the autopsy report. No damage to body other than minor abrasion to face. No sign of altercation.
So as of now, with what’s been presented (which people will accept or not) this is what we have.