Posted on 10/25/2014 8:41:01 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
The official St. Louis County autopsy report [link at URL] on Michael Brown who was killed by Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson on August 9, has been obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. According to the newspaper, two independent forensic experts who looked at the report indicated that results support Wilson's version of events. But one of the experts quoted in the story has since said that the newspaper presented her remarks without some very important context. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
Here is something you may be interested in relating to this: From Tech Dirt.com: "Indiana Supreme Court Declares An Officer's Testimony Is More Reliable Than Video Evidence"
Guess they think that cams on police officers are unnecessary...
As I have said for some time, I truly don’t know what happened, I don’t trust either side in this, and I think we are a far ways away from knowing everything.
Sometimes facts speak for themselves and they aren’t subject to pressure from racists and PC mongers.
She doesn’t need to say it, the evidence speaks for itself.
the autopsy shows—Brown tried to take the cops gun and kill him with it and then Brown ran at wilson to attack him again.
That is true, too for me to some extent. But the revelation that there are bullet holes INSIDE the cruiser, and blood on the inside of the door from Brown, tell me he wasn’t Winnie the Pooh big ole lovable bear his kinsmen are telling.
I don’t see any reason to doubt the cop was attacked in the car. And I don’t see any sign he shot someone running away.
If I wrestle with a cop in the cop car, I reckon I have to expect something bad will happen to me.
For a Vox article, this was pretty straightforward. The forensic pathologist said she couldn’t make any assumptions about the events, but that the evidence could support the officer’s version of the story.
When I was a Prosecutor, I was interviewed more times than I can possibly remember. All I know is that not one single time did the press get what I said 100% correct. That is why I tend to ignore what the press “analysis”. I am only interested in fact reporting and that is terribly rare anymore.
You know he went after a store keeper just before meeting up with the cop.
You know there was a skirmish at the police car and the gun did discharge.
You know that the punk was running away...at first. You know that he turned around. You know that he did not have his hands up. You know that he came barreling toward the cop.
You know that this 300 foot druggie could take that cop down like a twig.
Is there anything else that twists this scenario??
Let me get this straight. The officer’s gun is discharged inside the police cruiser, but they’re debating if Brown went for the gun?
Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
“You’re saying it was consistent with going for the gun, but it could have also been consistent with...”
No, the gun went off in the patrol car. End of discussion.
Considering the evidence inside the cruiser, this translates to them saying: “I don’t want these angry mobs after me!”
We’re probably talking about a total period of time of 3 minutes until Brown went down.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3219071/posts?page=2#2
You are not interested in facts as you flat out lied at the linked post, your assertion was refuted, and you ran away.
Then I am an "expert" too!
Do you accept ...
Brown had just committed a strong arm crime just before he was stopped
And there was
Blood in the car, bullet holes and shell casing in the car, and power burns on Brown’s wound?
Why did they leave out of Dorian Johnson’s account the fact that he told the police Wilson had shot Johnson in the back as they were running away?
Why did they leave out of Dorian Johnson’s account the fact that he told the police Wilson had shot Brown in the back as they were running away?
#1 Gun went off in the patrol car.
#2 Gunpowder residue on Brown's hands, indicates close proximity at firearm discharge .
#3 Gunpowder residue on Officer Wilson's hands ( expected).
#4 Gunpowder residue inside Officer Wilson's patrol car, along with bullet fragments.
#5 End of discussion.
The Indiana case dealt with whether a deputy sheriff following a car down a road at 1 AM had reasonable cause to stop the car and investigate the driver, who was later shown to be intoxicated, admitted to have been drinking, was in possession of marijuana, and was driving with suspended license.
The deputy said he saw the car go off the road twice; the deputy's video cam shows the car crossing the fog line twice. The court stated: "Deputy Claeys witnessed Robinson drive over the fog line twice in a relatively short period of time, giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that she was impaired. The initial intrusion—a Terry stop—was relatively minor, and Deputy Claeys only escalated the stop after he noticed several signs that Robinson was in fact intoxicated."
It was the initial trial court that had initially made the claim, that it was “quite possible that the officer’s actual visual observation of the defendant’s vehicle was superior to the video camera in his car.”
Here's the link to the April 10th Techdirt.com article, "Indiana Supreme Court Declares An Officer's Testimony Is More Reliable Than Video Evidence," which includes a link to the April 2nd article, "Indiana: Officer Testimony Overrules Video Evidence," which references the Indiana Supreme Court decision in Robinson v. State of Indiana.
Nothing new here - an autopsy report never tells you what happened, it tells you either what is possible OR what possibilities can be excluded.
So in this case, the report confirms that Brown reaching for the gun or charging at Wilson consistent with the forensic evidence, but that OF COURSE the there are other possibilities that could explain that evidence.
The larger question, which I don’t see addressed, is whether the other witness testimony could be ruled out. Those who say Brown was NOT in the car, or did NOT have his hand on the gun, or was NOT charging the officer, but instead had his hands raised up. Clearly, there was forensic evidence to indicate those could be ruled out, and she should have been pressed on those questions.
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.