Noticing you didn’t answer my question. My question was "What fingerprint evidence could have impeached Wison’s version of events?
I also asked you:
“Apparently, Wilson washed blood evidence from himself.” - Hentor
3 possibilities:
blood is from Brown. Appears to support the officer’s version.
blood is from Wilson. Supports the officer.
blood is from neither. Might support a conspiracy or some other version I can’t conceive of, that would support Brown.
Which are you suggesting, or what other possibility have I missed? Or are you just asking questions?
No problem. I went through the report myself, and I think it’s saying actually that there was also a minor DNA contribution to the blood from Wilson on Wilson’s gun, too, assuming I’m reading it correctly.
Reading through it I note that there appears to be no clear DNA evidence of Wilson, blood or otherwise, on Brown’s hands - would that count as an example of physical evidence contradicting Wilson’s story that **Bricker **was asking for? I’m not clear as to Wilson’s remarks, nor to the chances that recoverable, clear DNA would be the result of an assault of the nature in his claim.
The DNA analyst is clear to say that he can never know where the DNA came from, be it blood, spit, mucus, or whatever. I believe the implication is that the blood stain on Wilson’s thigh is Brown’s blood, and Wilson’s DNA was found by virtue of the fact that our pants are probably swimming in our DNA. But the DNA analyst would never go so far as to spell that out, since he can’t know for sure.
I don’t believe Wilson had any open wounds anywhere on his body. I could be wrong, but I haven’t seen any testimony that Wilson was bleeding anywhere.
Indeed. And since Wilson testified that Brown was pushing the gun into his left thigh, finding his own blood there would be a huge piece of evidence. But as far as I know, he didn’t have any cuts or bruises on his thigh. It’s also clear from the transcript that the grand jury so desperately wanted to hear the analyst tell them things like “This is Mike Brown’s blood.” And he would only talk in the sort of vagaries that you’d expect.
**
stereo**, your GD thread is awaiting your perusal and a ruling on the field.
Its about this story, linked above, that concerns the ongoing narrative about the distance between Brown and Wilson. Commonly that distance has been described by police sources as being about 35 feet. It was not, it was >150 ft.
Links are in the story. Of special note is a segment of Wilson’s interview with Little Georgie Stephanopolos, where he repeats the “thirty five” foot story. Even though, as the story notes, the prosecutor stated it officially to be 158 feet.
No official clarification has been issued at this time.
Shit!! Totally forgot the PSA! The link is to Daily Kos, a level one mental liberal cootie exposure, proceed at your own risk!
Given this, from the article: “Still, the police refused to acknowledge or comment on the matter and several members of the St. Louis media wrote me publicly and privately to tell me I was wrong and that Brown was indeed killed 35 feet from Wilson’s SUV.” (Emphasis added)
I would go so far as to call this provocative but not conclusive. Local media presumably know the area a lot better than this blogger. The eyewitness accounts were obviously all over the place when it came to estimating the distance. Also, I believe Wilson is acknowleged to have run after Brown for some distance, so the distance from the SUV seems a little off the main point, which would seem to be the distance between the two men.
I did respond in post 3235. Pay attention before you cop such an attitude.
I would be more interested in whether the amount and location of the blood was consistent with Wilson’s story. How did that utility of blood evidence escape your ironclad breakdown of all possibilities?
Wow. All of these questions about the evidence and witness testimony, discrepancies and the like. It’s not very cut and dried either way, if you ask me!
If only there was some way that these things could have been sorted out. Like a trial of some sort.
Uh, the dialog that sounds like a bad movie? The cop who is perfectly polite (in contrast to his demeanor in a separate videotaped confrontation) and is met with “Fuck what you say” or whatever was claimed. The out-of-the-blue insane attack by the super predator. The full swing punches through a partially opened drivers side window. The full swing punches from a menacing hulk of a beast that leave no visible mark. The full swing punches with a hand supposedly still holding cigarellos. The pause in the middle of administering a beating to hand off the cigarellos.
All the stuff that sounds plausible only if you’re biased to see giant menacing black thugs.
I find it much more plausible that a cop feels his authority was disrespected flings a door open and has it bounce back on him.
So if Brown’s fingerprints are not found on the gun, what do you suppose that might prove? Are you under the impression that after both men wrestle for the gun, and then Wilson admittedly continues to handle it and operate it, that an absence of Brown’s fingerprints somehow disproves Wilson’s story? Are you under the impression that there are always 'usable prints" after an time has been touched? Similarly, AFAIK Wilson admittedly washed blood from his hands/forearms. Not sure how this might be hiding clearly damning evidence. Maybe you could clearly state the hypothesis where lack of fingerprints and washing his hands clearly suggests a significant coverup, so I really don’t get what you are proposing might have happened.
Did you read the cite I gave you from the GJ transcripts where the forensic specialist explains how they could do DNA identification on the gun or fingerprints, but not both?
I did, and I find it hard to believe. I would like to hear an explanation and confirmation from another authority.
For example, and I am NOT presenting this as authoritative - it’s just something from the internet, but it states that it is possible to examine for fingerprints and then DNA:
This makes more sense to me because if DNA evidence was so easily rendered useless, it would seem that it would be regularly contaminated by all the stuff that must be present wherever DNA evidence is found at crime scenes.
Real life isn’t an episode of CSI. Just sayin’. Abby can’t really just run everything through her molecular re-enhancement program and all will be known.
Clearly you (and I) lack the necessary expertise to judge that. I am willing to admit it and accept the expert’s testimony. You seem wedded to your own admittedly ignorant conclusion.
Experts in general have extreme value. Individual experts, not as much. I would think most people need more than a single expert to have them believe something that seems counterfactual to them. Heck, I would think most Dopers would actually want the experts to offer proof of some sort before believing them.
This is yet another reason I wish this had gone to actual trial. Experts need to be cross-examined.
