I’m favoriting this thread just for the above post. The only thing I would add is the reminder that cops are not constitutionally required to do jackshit. They could walk right past a murder and not be required by law to do anything. (They might, and probably would in most places lose their job for that, but even that is no certainty)
And I think the dailykos is usually full of crap. The St Louis Post Dispatched included a copy of the autopsy report along with it’s article. People can read the autopsy report and make up their own minds. This doesn’t appear to be a leaked report. From the grand jury or anyone else. The forensic expert was available to answer questions.
From the linked article - The expert quoted has since told Lawrence O’Donnell that she was only asked if the autopsy report was consistent with Darren Wilson’s version of events. She was not asked if it fit other scenarios, though there are eyewitness accounts that differ from Wilson’s account.
It appears that the reporters didn’t ask enough questions or enough in-depth questions. It doesn’t appear that they made things up and the forensic expert could have provided more detail. Oh well.
isn’t this the first autopsy performed and the results leaked?
the other autopsy, which had its results released first which was released by the family who paid for it, was done after the first autopsy and the body cleaned, processed and embalmed. if that is so then much is lost before the second autopsy was done.
It does indeed appear that the reporters attributed “quotes” to the forensic expert (the ones repeated in this thread’s OP, in particular) that she, in fact, neither said nor believes. They didn’t “fail to ask enough questions”, they made their own, amateur and biased, interpretation of the forensic evidence, and attributed it to her.
The St. Louis PD article smelled of so much shenanigans it’s a shame anyone took it seriously.
What concerns me is that there’s been very little attention given to the back-to-front wound on Brown’s upper arm. It supports two possibilities, neither one in Wilson’s favor: 1) that he was shot from behind (which supports witnesses who said the cop was shooting at him as he ran away), or 2) that his arms were raised in surrender when he was shot.
The forensic pathologist reported that the bullet had an back-to-front “upward” trajectory. Now wouldn’t that trajectory be exactly what you would expect if Brown was shot head on with his arms raised and slightly forward?
With all due respect…what does it frigging matter?
What about that guy in Utah? SOMEONE falsified an initial report saying 'he lunged at the police officers with a samurai sword. So we go from that to a guy 100 yards away who has been shot from behind 6 times.
Who filed the false report? Who knows. How is the investigation going? Who knows.
And the last two people who ‘shot themselves while wearing handcuffs’? How’s that investigation going? I’ll bet nothing comes of any of it.
I realize this is a forum called In My Opinion, but the daily kos is not a legitimate citation, for anything.
I have my own misgivings about Daily Kos, but they link to their source, which in this case is the blog of Dr. Judy Melinik, the pathologist quoted in the Post-Dispatch piece. I think you have to be somewhat intellectually lazy not to at least click on the link and follow it through to see where they’re getting it. So many times on the Dope I see “And you trust HuffPo/DailyKos/FreeRepublic/Breitbart/Drudge as a source?!?” Only for the poster to trundle off and find a more neutral link. It’s ridiculous.
Anyway, from the link above, you can see how the Post-Dispatch turned this:
[QUOTE=Dr. Judy Melinik]
The hand wound has gunpowder particles on microscopic examination, which suggests that it is a close-range wound. That means that Mr. Brown’s hand would have been close to the barrel of the gun. Given the investigative report which says that the officer’s weapon discharged during a struggle in the officer’s car, this wound to the right thumb likely occurred at that time.
[/QUOTE]
Into this:
[QUOTE=Post-Dispatch blatant lies]
Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.” She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.”
[/QUOTE]
Not only is that blatantly dishonest, but it suggests that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is no longer an impartial source. That’s such an egregious violation of journalistic standards that one can only assume that they’re intentionally trying to drum up support for Darren Wilson. Given how many people immediately came running here to say “Autopsy proves Wilson’s version of events!” based on manipulated and made-up quotes from a doctor who wasn’t even there for the autopsy in question, I’d say they were pretty successful. But really, shame on anyone who believed that crap in the first place – pathologists aren’t in the habit of jumping to conclusions like that based on forensic evidence, it smelled super fishy from the get-go.
But the protesters seem to be demanding that Wilson be indicted. If Mike Brown was proven to be a sociopathic serial killer and Darren Wilson was Andy Griffith, indicting Wilson seems a bit unfair.
Without a indictment, you don’t get a trial. Without a trial, you can’t prove anyone was sociopath or an Andy Griffith.
Two responses:
(1) My statement was predicated on assuming the truth of his claim. He said that even if if Mike Brown was proven to be a sociopathic serial killer and Darren Wilson was Andy Griffith, the protesters’ goals were valid.
(2) As a general rule, we don’t require someone to prove their innocence. It’s true that the level of proof required to start a trial is low: probable cause. But it’s also true that prosecutors should be guided by pragmatic concerns. Since the standard required to convict is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” a prosecutor should refrain from seeking an indictment if he knows he will not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.
OK, three:
(3) Response (2) sort of elides the problem that the protesting community is protesting in part because they don’t trust the determinations reached by the official government machinery. But I’m not sure a trial solves that problem. George Zimmerman was manifestly not factually guilty of second degree murder under Florida law, and the trial did little to convince the public of that fact – or more accurately, the fraction of the public that was convinced that Zimmerman deserved to be convicted. So if you were suggesting a trial would be good to allow Wilson to clear his name… that doesn’t seem to work.
I express no opinion on the actual guilt or innocence of Wilson or of Brown.
At this point, this whole Ferguson case has moved past the facts of this individual case. While I generally support the Police and might even support this Officer in this case, the fact is that we have a militarized Police in the US and the Ferguson protests seemed to have passed the individual to the general.
Whether I like it or not, I think that there is at the minimum, a perception by the black community that the Police are out to get them. In my mind, I don’t believe anymore that this is merely perception.
When I was a patrol officer, we didn’t have the types of equipment, training and attitudes that you see in some of these departments. There was a distinct change of culture when I went from miitary police to civilian police. What I see is a military police force culture that goes beyond even what the military has that treats citizens as criminals by default and specifically black people.
Attitudes need to change in many departments and in many officers’ minds. The Ferguson protests need to not only continue but expand. When the Occupy Movement began, they had no focus, but their complaints transcended any individual complaint to the more general and pervasive notion that something was seriously wrong. Ferguson is the same thing. What is wrong may not be present in this individual case, but there is something seriously wrong and we don’t have to be right in the specific to address such a general wrong.
(post shortened and underline added)
The Ferguson protest haven’t expanded because it doesn’t have much popular support. There is a small vocal minority that demands more protests and violence. Big Mike Brown isn’t a very sympathetic figure. He’s a strong arm robber who got into a confrontation with a police officer while Brown was still carrying evidence of his robbery.
You may be more interested in solving a larger problem and not care if the facts of the case are uncovered, or spun, or invented, but there are others who are and they aren’t in the street protesting, looting, or burning buildings. The protestors are demanding that Wilson be convicted. That’s their version of “justice”. Wilson is not some inconvenience to be railroaded into prison so you can solve your greater social injustice.
I am not suggesting otherwise. It is quite clear to me that in this specific case, there is reason to think that the Officer did nothing to the extent of illegal. I have yet to hear enough facts delivered in a court to make a determination one way or the other.
My point is that there is ample evidence that there are some serious issues with the way the Police (not all inclusive) and some departments deal with the black community. The militarization of the Police IS a problem and needs to be addressed.
(post shortened. Underline and bold added.)
Why did the Ferguson police don riot gear? Was it because some members of the lynch mob/protestors threaten the lives of the police? Were shots fired from the lynch mob/protestors? Was it because some members of the lynch mob/protestors threw rocks, bottles, and molotov cocktails at the police? Was it because some members of the lynch mob/protestors looted and burned buildings in Ferguson?
Nah. It must be assumed that the police were only trying to intimidate the lynch mob/protestors by donning safety gear.
Why did Brown’s body lie in the street for 4 hours? Was it because the lynch mob would not allow the police to secure the crime scene for 4 hours and the coroner isn’t allowed into an unsecured crime scene? Can police remove a body from a crime scene without the coroner’s say so?
Verdict expected any day.
I hope they wait a few more days until this Arctic cold snap rolls in. There’s nothing like 30 degree weather to clear the streets. There will be demonstrations but hopefully they won’t extend late into the night when it drops into the low 20’s.
Given the highly charged circumstances this verdict could go either way. The grand jury may pass this hot potato to a trial jury regardless of the exculpatory evidence.
Nitpick: it’s not a verdict. The grand jury considers a “bill of indictment,” and returns it as a “true bill” or “not a true bill.”
The shop owners are preparing for the expected riots. The police are preparing for the expected riots. The National Guard is prepared for the expect riots. The residents are preparing for the expected riots. MSNBC and CNN are drooling at the thought of the added revenue from covering the riots.
The question is, which one of the non-residential outside groups is going to start the violence.
I have no first hand knowledge of the Ferguson police practices. In general a 50 man department does not have a large detective bureau or their own crime scene unit. An individual detective can handle a less important scene on their own. A major crime will be handled either by the county or the state. And they are usually not waiting around like fighter pilots ready to scramble. After the initial action is over it is the responsibility of the patrol officers to secure the scene and wait for the crime scene crew. Depending on how far away they are and what they are involved in at the time it may take a while. The body is a key piece of evidence. Maybe the key piece of evidence. It does not get moved until it is fully recorded and documented. If they had moved the body quickly without it being fully documented there would be an uproar about contaminating the crime scene. I don’t know the exact reason why there was a delay. For PR reasons it would be important to move the body as soon as possible. For investigative purposes it is more important to get it right rather than fast.