And right here on DU, as elsewhere, the 'Brown was just a thug' crowd gleefully seized on that dishonest story as 'evidence' that Brown's shooting was 'justified'.

Wilson didn't leak his fuller version of the story until AFTER the forensic evidence was leaked. He had plenty of time to come up with a story that would be congruent with the autopsy report, and then, when that story was leaked, the timing was ignored, and it was asserted as proof that his story was 'true' because it agreed with the autopsy, rather than taking note that it just as easily meant that his story was designed to match the report.

People will listen to you more than they'll listen to some others of us. I hope that those that continue to use the St Louis Post Dispatch as validation of their racist ideology will finally STFU.

K&R

Actually it seems to me you could support either version of events using the autopsy report. The autopsy could support the argument that the cop smashed his car door into Brown on purpose, grabbed Brown's collar through the car window with one hand and drew his gun with the other, Brown tried to fend off the Glock while Wilson fired off several shots at close range, until he managed to get away and began running. Shot in the back, he turned around to surrender and was shot again. The killing bullet went through the top of his skull while he was falling to the ground.

his head. This autopsy says nothing. Also the shots that are the important ones in this case are the ones fired while Wilson was chasing Michael. What does the autopsy say about them? Did it give any info on why Michael got the death penalty? What did he do to deserve that? He was unarmed.

and all the other media sources that quoted her should offer very public apologies, and correct the record.

She needs to be fired and publicly shamed for trying to twist the facts, as in, career over. The retractions from other papers should not be buried in the back either.

Powerful interests needed this to come out this way.

There are always other sides to every story

I have had it with this spin doctoring that interferes with justice.

opinions are worthy of proving that the FBI, local and State Police, Eric Holder and the judicial system are all in "the fix" to let Wilson off the hook.

Quite a conspiracy for the sake of one unknown officer, involved in the first police shooting in Furgeson in ....how many years ?

Which version of Darian Johnson's account of the incident do you think is true ? Darian was the guy with Brown when he was shot. On camera he has already given two different versions.

Cops make mistakes, there indeed "bad cops", however there is no evidence that Wilson had any type of history, nor tendency to be a "bad cop". regardless of race, you reach inside the cop car to grab the officer, being shot is a very real possibility. Anyone who doesn't understand the consequences is either willfully ignorant, or a defense lawyer.

Want a real bummer? read up on how many black youths are shot by black officers, and little anyone cares about them.

You claim that Brown reached inside the vehicle to grab Wilson, yet there is no evidence to support such a claim. Your allegation has no basis in fact.

case closed. Now, lets burn the city to the ground in the name of racism. that's what everybody seems to want to be the story.

When you look at more than just what you want to hear, you are going to accept that Brown reached for Wilson, and Wilson shot him. That was, and has been the truth from the first day. Dorian Johnson was the kid with Brown when he was shot, and the first to say that.

Brown reached for Wilson and was shot repeatedly.
-or- You have to accept that the FBI, the state police , Eric Holder and the justice system are "in on the fix" to protect an unknown white cop who decided to murder an innocent black kind in cold blood, in broad daylight.

those are your only choices.

You have no evidence that Brown reached into the car to grab Wilson, you can try to cite the FBI and holder to pretend your unfounded allegation had merit but the fact is that none of the sources you cite have ever claimed that Brown reached into the car to grab Wilson.

No one said the city should be burned to the ground in the name of racism, but racists have tried to pretend that the people standing for racial justice want to burn the city to the ground.

from somewhere else. THEY WENT THERE TO STIR THE SHIT !

The looting, the fires, the vandalism, christ sake there were three shootings DURING THE PROTESTS. 100 some odd arrests,......4 were furgeson residents. I realize you probably never heard any of this. Which is proof enough that I am making it up right ?

White officer Wilson murdered Afican American youth Brown, and there is a cover up in the works,........ "the fix is in" as so many here want to put it. The grand jury, the FBI, local and State police as well as Eric Holder will have to be in on "the fix", for an unknown white cop to cold blooded murder a black kid for no reason.
-or-
my version, which is based on Dorian Johnson's account ....... you remember him ? the kid giving the interview the day of the shooting, the kid next to Brown when he got shot reaching into the car? The kid who described hearing the gunshot inside the car, and Brown stepping back with blood on him ? There are only two ways to get powder residue on your body 1) shoot a gun, or 2) be shot at close range. Is the residue on Brown's hand from him shooting or being shot ? The blood in the car ?

you decide.

They used pepper spray and rubber bullets on peaceful protesters, they pointed assault rifles at them, they arrested journalists, they arrested people for standing still for more than five seconds.

The "out of town" people who were arrested mostly came from the St. Louis area, I suppose St. Louis is technically "out of town" if you consider an area three miles away from the shooting to be a far away place. A number of the real out of owners were journalists, just because someone was arrested does not mean they are criminals.

And you still have not provided any evidence to prove Brown grabbed Wilson. You tell me "you decide", well I decide someone who wants me to decide to believe his made up allegation rather than providing a source to prove the allegation is not credible.

According to the Washington Post...

"Johnson and police have differing accounts. In an earlier interview with The Post, Johnson’s attorney, Freeman Bosley Jr., described his client’s account: Johnson said Wilson was the aggressor, ordering the two to get out of the street and confronting them again when they said they were near Johnson’s apartment. Johnson said Wilson, still in his cruiser, grabbed Brown by the neck and, as Brown tried to pull away, threatened to shoot. Then he fired. Brown fled as Wilson shot multiple times, including, Johnson said, appearing to strike Brown in the back before he turned to surrender and was shot again."

Nothing about Brown reaching into the car.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michael-brown-and-dorian-johnson-the-friend-who-witnessed-his-shooting/2014/08/31/bb9b47ba-2ee2-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html

What's your source?

if so, would you be kind enough to post a link to their findings?

We all know there is a seperate investigation, but if you knew anything about that investigation you would know they have not released their findings. They certainly have not came out and said Brown grabbed Wilson.

because you are absolutely correct. The real story has not come out, but it is about to, and science will tell the truth, that emotions prevent people from telling.

it's either a fixed murder from top to bottom,
or its a justifiable shooting.
can't be both

Won't be long now, a week maybe ? Definitely on a Tuesday or Wednesday. How do you think it will be spun that Wilson Murdered Brown and was given a pass by a corrupt investigation, given there are so many points of contact in this investigation? Kinda like the faked moon landing, be an awful lot of people "in on it".

You claimed that Brown grabbed Wilson, but the investigation has not shown that and science has not shown that either.

If you knew anything about science you would know that it is extremely unlikely that science will prove exactly what happened in the vehicle, it will however prove that Brown was standing a distance away from the vehicle and could not have possibly been grabbing Wilson when the fatal shots were fired.

Right to the "lets burn the city down" meme. We don't want to burn anything down, we want a justice system that recognizes the value of our lives as just as important and to be just as respected as White people on this country

In the last few unjustified shootings of Black men in this country, the victims from the families of Trayvon Martin to Jordan Davis have comported themselves with a thousand times more grace and humility than any I have seen from cop supporters. Remember that.

points?

Thank you!

you should submit that one.

the most interesting "testimony" is still going to be the different versions of the truth Dorian Johnson told. He was the kid with Brown when he was shot, the fist one to say Brown reached into the car, and got shot.

There are a ton of other witnesses besides Johnson, don't you?

If you claim that science backs up your claim can you cite a forensic expert that says there is proof that Brown grabbed Wilson? The forensic expert cited in the OP does not state any such thing.

Don't pretend your opinion is science, you are no scientist and scientists are not in consensus on the facts of this case.

and tried to pull him into the front seat of the car.


Forencsics actually is a science, with...... like..... classes and everything. Amazing huh ? Who woulda thunk that "forensics" can tell the difference between an entrance and exit wound, AND bullet trajectory, it's almost like there are ways the actual truth will come out .

There are no "facts" presented yet ....lol... in this case, only partial leaked opinion. Big Al Sharpton got his 15min of blood fame, whipped up a calamity, and then shut that wet pie hole under his nose. He either found out what REALLY happened and quit while the quitting was good, or extracted the publicity he needed and went on his way. kinda curious what you think "reverend" Al's play was ?

Forensics have not shown that Brown grabbed Wilson, as much as you may want to pretend your racism is science based it is not.

Al Sharpton has nothing to do with this conversation, but I know he is the favorite target of racists who feel the need to bring him into every conversation about the murder of black people.

In fact, he has way more to lose than Johnson. And of course, you seem quick to call out people who may think they saw what they think they saw but nothing about a police department that has spinned this investigation from day one

I'm old enough and Black enough to know that cops do lie, that the system has in the past twisted justice egregiously when it come to Black men and that Black men have been wrongfully prisoned for decades or outright killed by the same system whose "science" you are going on and on about.

mood-altering substances after the shooting? If so, what were the results? If not, why not?

you didn't even read your own link.
It's ratings sex wax from a news outlet on the riot and protests.

Scroll to where it says, "Meanwhile another woman is coming forward to reveal that she had a run-in with officer Darren Wilson..." Her story is below that in italics. I doubt you will though because it doesn't show what a wonderful "work ethic" you believe he has.;

Did YOU read the link? Excerpt...

Wilson's previous job.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

There are at least questions that should be asked, think Darren would like to have a conversation?

Did you even read that article except "white cop shot black kid" ?

It creative writing at best,........ fish food for the masses.

Your link is "journalistic" opinion fed to the readers of the Post like gospel. I'd wager you didn't even read it, it's about the protest and riot.

If your "proof" is the two lines regarding the Jennings police disbandment, maybe you should look into that farther before you pretend to understand it.

At least it does for anyone that doesn't have their mind already made up that Brown's death was justified.

Doesn't want to believe his hero is a murdering racist pig.

Perhaps a conspiracy?

Remember the media coverage in the lead up to the Iraq War? Damn near every major media outlet printed lies about WMDs.

Gary Webb

vanity vehicle (WaPo).

Rather than a conspiracy, simply telling people what they wish to hear... which I believe is called Marketplace Journalism

We need this ALL over DU.

go on junk like this. Justice will go down again.

McCulloch should have recused himself as prosecutor on this.

I especially like this part of her explanation:

"In my memoir of forensic training, Working Stiff, I quote my mentor, Dr. Charles Hirsch, as saying that 'the best way to respond to a reporter is with your hat. Put it on and walk away.'

I don't agree. I believe the best way to respond to a reporter is to give the reporter accurate, succinct quotes, and set the record straight if they misrepresent what you said.

Too many forensic pathologists are afraid of speaking out about their expertise, because they believe that all members of the press have a prepared agenda, or that professional reporters will misquote scientific experts to force a point that doesn't comport with the forensic evidence. But if we forensic pathologists all put on our hats and walk away, others who lack our medical training and experience will fill the void we leave. I want to make sure the reading and viewing (and tweeting) public have an opportunity to understand forensic science in the real world—what it can tell us, and what it can not. I'm not going to walk away."

(snip)

I'm not even comfortable with the press using experts to explain something that they don't have enough information to actually give a definitive answer to in the first place. Having an expert only review an autopsy without the other information she mentioned, and it's pretty obvious why the most pertinent questions could really only be answered by essentially "could be this, could be that, could be the other". I'm not seeing any point to it. The whole point to the press using experts is to provide special information definitively about what something means... key word being "definitively".

As for the reporter... FOR SHAME! Whoever you are, you have no business working in journalism. Deliberately misquoting an expert you went to for help in such a way as to crap all over their professional reputation and set them up for public scorn is not only worth a kick to the curb but a big fat lawsuit the Post-Dispatch should have to settle very generously on.

Every single day there is an endless list of vulgar ineptitude by this country's thoroughly embarrassing media. I swear each day anymore I expect some vulgar inept loon representing our media to grab their crotch, light their farts aflame, engage in belching competitions and do beer funnels literally in front of a camera and figuratively in print. And the worst thing about that is that I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if/when they did. Gods be good, we used to laugh at yet were horrified by Soviet Union propaganda media when they at least lied like adults politely one at a time and kept a decent amount of clothes on. And for shame on Lawrence O'Donnell for jumping on the bandwagon of Jerry Springer Show style of media.

what other shenanigans its reporters, editors and publisher have been up to in connection with this story and others?

a terrible event. I would read the articles and think "who is this person they are reporting about? these are not the things I know to be true".

I suspect they are reading the comments (that turn my stomach) of the articles and leaning with those opinions to be popular. That, of course, is just my opinion!

Her career will be as good as dead because no one will talk to her (I'm not suggesting this is a bad thing). That said, it could have been the editors that misquoted.

When we don't even know what that story is? Have they finished concocting it yet?

.... they are careening towards obsolescence and irrelevance.

It's the continual lies and spin assholes.

what words I write about the pro-wilson crowd here, but bravo to you kpete.

Who could ever have imagined that.

The thumb is always the wound that has intrigued me because it looked to have occurred at a different time than the other bullet wounds and was likely a key piece of the puzzle to be solved. I don't believe we are there yet.

The first autopsy report said all gunshot wounds were from a distance. They also said they did not examine the clothing so that could change should gunshot residue be found there. The thumb, however, would not be covered by clothing.

Here is what the second autopsy report said "The hand wound has gunpowder particles on microscopic examination, which suggests that it is a close-range wound."

Did the first autopsy just miss that or could they have conclude it was something else. For instance, Mike Brown was a smoker. When he used his thumb to flick a lighter could microscopic hot burned flint be ejected onto his thumb. How different would burned powder and burned flint be?

Gunpowder is a mix of carbon, potassium nitrate and sulfur.

I don't think a trained forensics expert would mistake the two.

There were three autopsies - the one by the local coroner; the private one by by Dr. Michael Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, hired by the family; and one by the Justice Department expert.

The first autopsy released about August 17 was really not very complete - the experts did not have access to Michael Brown's clothing and there is the possibility that the body had been washed before they saw it which would have removed the gunpowder residue.

In an interview the day it happened, before he hired an attorney, he said the officer yanked Michael Brown through the window (I don't think you will find that move in any police training), at which time Micheal Brown struggled to get free. I believe Michael must have hit Wilson in the struggle to get free, which pissed off Officer Wilson who responded by shooting Brown to death. Whatever explain action they come up with, there was no reason to continue to fire at Brown until dead!
Yes, I speculated as to some specifics, but that is what I think happened. Once Brown was away from the car, any shooting after that cannot be justified.

discounts what he claimed happened.

that his story does not fit the facts. If the autopsy didn't prove he lied, that's a problem for the prosecution. Wilson's attorney will argue that the prosecution case doesn't positively rule out the story Wilson tells, and that's your reasonable doubt right there. It really does not matter if the autopsy is also consistent with other scenarios. If one "innocent" scenario can squeak through without contradicting the provable facts, a jury would have to give it weight.

As for the eyewitnesses, what are the odds that every one of them had bad experiences at the hands of the Ferguson police and might conceivably hold a grudge? The abusive behavior of the Ferguson police may actually help to discredit the eyewitnesses! "You can't trust these witnesses because they hate the police," the defense attorney will say. Never mind the fact that the police department earned that hate, that the hate is completely justified. Is their hatred sufficient to raise a reasonable possibility they would lie on the witness stand? If the jury believes that, then the case against Wilson pretty much fails.

This is depressing me, but I really think Wilson's gonna walk.

warrant is issued upon probably cause and, IIRC, an arraignment occurs in front of a judge.

Pedantic itch scratched. Now back to regular programming!

BTW: That's an interesting point you raise about Wilson's potential defense straegy if it comes to that. To wit, the defense may seek to impeach the prosecution's eyewitnesses as biased and untrustworthy, precisely because of their ill treatment previously at the hands of Ferguson and St. Lous County law enforcement.

given the benefit of the doubt.

Alternative view: But what about Mike Brown's rights? He can't be given the benefit of the doubt or tell us his story because he's DEAD!

DU Wilson/Zimmerman Cheerleaders: We don't care! Wilson's life was in danger! He was defending himself!

Alternative view: What's your proof that he was defending himself?

DU Wilson/Zimmerman Cheerleaders: We must wait until all the facts become available. We must give Wilson the benefit of the doubt.

all the evidence in front of the Grand Jury and let the GJ decide" (paraphrasing the gist of his comments).

All well and good -- sounds really fair on the surface. EXCEPT who is Michael Brown's advocate in front of that Grand Jury? Wilson is allowed to testify to it in his own defense, apparently, but McCulloch is forswearing the traditional role of the DA to be the spokesperson and advocate for the victim and for society writ large. Is why I call McCulloch a 'stooge' who should be scorned and shunned henceforth (assuming no indictment is forthcoming).

He is biased. He is obstructing justice. He is protecting this officer.

I think the black citizens of Ferguson and all the white, Asian, Hispanic...and all the good folks who care about what happened to this young man are preparing themselves for a terrible injustice. I think we all know that this cop is going to get off scott-free but we are trying to come to terms with that.

Something in the back of my mind tells me that one of the reasons Eric Holder resigned is because he saw what was coming down the pike and simply just could not stomach any more injustice.

Civil rights law is incredibly difficult. I admire all my friends who have gone into that specialty law; I honestly do not know how they maintain. It is a thankless profession. Oftentimes you get pro bono work. It doesn't pay much, particularly if you have school loans. One has to be fully committed to justice for those historically disadvantaged groups--women included.

I could totally see Holder being emotionally drained by what he has seen and how one can easily circumvent the law and exploit the rules to literally get away with murder.

I am sorry if the OP already has this. I can only see one post aa time on my phone.

This article addresses exactly what the issues are with these leaks.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ferguson-leaks-20141022-story.html#page=1

In a criminal matter, the defendant (i.e., Wilson) is presumed innocent and the state bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Are you suggesting that Wilson (or Zimmerman or anyone else) is not entitled to basic constitutional protections? Murders are successfully prosecuted every day, despite the lack of a live victim.

As a practical matter, if the forensic evidence (which we have only see a scant few pieces) is consistent with Wilson's account (and I really have no idea what that is without reading the transcript of his grand jury testimony), a criminal conviction would seem difficult, if not unlikely. If there are actual witnesses who support Wilson, no less a number of African-American's as indicated by the NYT, such a muddled mess would almost guarantee acquittal, and quite possibly result in a failure to indict.

As an aside, the piecemeal release of evidence is not only annoying, but it is a disservice to the public. I'm eager to review the grand jury transcripts upon their release and see the full extent of the forensic evidence and actual sworn witness testimony.

talking about the standard of 'guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' At this point, all that is being discussed and all that is under consideration is whether sufficient probable cause exists for Wilson to be indicted for murder or some lesser offense. It is NOT and NEVER has been the Grand Jury's respsonibility to decide on whether a criminal conviction is likely or even possible. The only thing the Grand Jury is charged with deciding is this:

IS THERE PROBABLE CAUSE THAT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED SUCH THAT AN INDICTMENT SHOULD BE ISSUED?

I don't understand how we got to the point of arguing whether we can bend the evidence to fit the cops version of the story. I thougt we were determining whether charges should be filed for a trial. The idea that a jury might not convict should not decide for us whether or not we should have a trial. It doesn't work like this for regular people. We do not get to stay home and mold our story to fit evidence provided for us by friendly police who sheild us.

Thank you. I caught that same type of deflection in uponit's thread.

I believe sufficient evidence likely exists to issue an indictment. I would note, however, that we are privy to only a fraction of the forensics and witness testimony, and therefore our perceptions of the strength of the case might be badly skewed.

However, much of the discussion here and elsewhere actually discusses Wilson's guilt or innocence, not just whether an indctment should issue, including the post to which I was initially responding. If the evidence and testimony is anything like that presented in the recent NYT article, a conviction would appear to be a remote possibility.

without even considering the possibility that he could be corrupt reeks. It just does.

Yes, facts matter, but if you are asserting that, then stop defending this man come hell or high water until ALL the facts are out.

It seems like he is defended as if all of the facts ARE out and they are not.

We want him to be arrested. If he ever goes to trial, THEN you can talk to us about "beyond a reasonable doubt" because that's when that standard will come into play.

Gee I wonder why?

You are a true treasure of the Internet

so he reached to smack it away from being pointed at him out of pure reaction .. he freaked out (wouldn't you ?).. and that's where the finger shot happened ..
I mean, why did the cop have it out of his holster anyway that early on ?
regardless, nothing justifies the amount of shots fired.

... the cop pull a piece that fast while SITTING DOWN driving backwords.

I'd like to know what side of the cops body the piece was on... if it was on the right side .. the cop being right handed... then the cop pulled the piece BEFORE he backed up...

There's no way I'm going to believe Brown has THAT long of an arm reach to be able to ... WHILE FIGHTING... unholster a gun while on the other side of a man sitting down in a car...

This is some bullshit...

The area leos are so full of shit

Really my first (and main) question. I saw what "THEY" (RW newsholes) did to our local and only one.

The Zimmerman style "Justice" will soon be in play.

Thanks, kpete.

A police-media conspiracy to cover up the truth. Imagine that.