Leaks in Michael Brown Death Investigation

I haven't been following the Michael Brown case lately, but I am interested in the issue of law enforcement leaks that favor Officer Wilson at a time when the grand jury is considering whether to charge him.

The spokesman for the St. Louis prosecutor ’s office, Ed Magee, blows off the leaks with:

“There’s really nothing to investigate,” Magee said Wednesday. “We don’t have control over anybody leaking anything. All we can control is people in our office and the grand jury, and it’s not coming from us or the grand jury.”

He blames federal officials because his office has been sharing information with the Department of Justice and the articles with the leaked information refer to the sources as "officials briefed on the investigation." [More...]

If the prosecutor's office shared information with other law enforcement agencies, the prosecutor still has an ethical obligation to take affirmative steps to prevent leaks. They can't just play Freddie Prinz and say "It's not my job."

From the ABA Standards on Prosecution Function

Standard 3-1.4 Public Statements

(a) A prosecutor should not make or authorize the making of an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the prosecutor knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing a criminal proceeding.

(b) A prosecutor should exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees, or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under this Standard.

What reasonable steps has his office taken? And without an investigation, how does he know it's not investigators with his or another state office involved in the investigation who is leaking? Maybe the journalists who wrote up the information used the word "official" to provide an extra layer or anonymity. Also, one journalist used the word "law enforcement official." That includes local cops and prosecutors. Statutes use the phrase "law enforcement officials" to include anyone whose job it is to enforce the law. If you have a badge, you are a "law enforcement official." Even by itself, the word "official" would include those working in an investigative capacity for the state bureau of investigation. It could also include someone in the coroner's office.

I don't see the motive for the feds to be leaking pro-Wilson documents. I do see a motive for local and state officials to want to help one of their own.

On a related note, Brown family lawyer, Benjamin Crump, shows he now knows how to accept "the facts beyond change" and build a strategy around them, rather than arguing his preferred set of facts: He agrees there was an altercation in the car and says that's not the issue.

“Several independent witnesses indicated there was a brief altercation between Michael Brown and Officer Wilson at the patrol car,” Crump said in a statement. “What we want to know is why Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown multiple times and killed him even though he was more than 20 feet away from his patrol car; this is the crux of the matter!”

I think he's right about that.

< Shootings at Parliament in Ottawa | Canadian Shooting Suspect Zehaf-Bibeau 's Background >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Why is the autopsy report (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by leftwig on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 10:11:10 PM EST
    considered to be a "pro Wilson" document?  Shouldn't it be considered a pro truth document, whatever it reveals?

    I do agree that the prosecutors office should do whatever it can to prevent leaks while a GJ investigation is under way.  I imagine the prosecutor and FPD have had most of this information for some time (more than a month).  If they are the ones leaking, why wouldn't they have done it some time ago?  

    I won't speculate that its the Feds leaking this information, but I disagree that they wouldn't have interest in leaking information over time versus having one big release when a GJ decision is made.  The leaks to me smell of someone preparing the local community and others for an anticipated outcome that they won't agree with and I wouldn't discount the Feds having interest in that.

      In theory, an ME should be a neutral analyst and reporter of findings within the scope of his expertise- thus, attempting to  provide  "truth."

      In practice, that is often not the case and MEs, similar officials performing such duties and other classes of forensic experts employed by the state assume the role of partisans and are not neutral and will offer or attempt to offer opinions beyond the scope of what their expertise truly permits.

      Also, even honest and neutral people aren't always correct, so "truth" is elusive even with best intentions.

      As to leaks, there are many potential motivations that range from the most nefarious types such as prejudicing the administration of justice to fomenting violence to the more mundane but and less malicious (but potentially just as damaging) desire to be a "big shot" (for lack of a better term). It's not unusual for law enforcement officials, other government officials and other persons with "inside" knowledge to leak to a reporter for reasons beyond an interest in the outcome of a particular investigation or newsworthy topic. Some people just like to talk either  to impress or to cultivate a relationships with the media that could be helpful to them in the future.  



    Fair points (none / 0) (#46)
    by leftwig on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:18:07 PM EST
    There is always the possibility of bias in any investigation. I would like to point out something I didn't reference above.  The NYT article says they got their information from government officials, then later said, "The officials said that while the federal investigation was continuing, the evidence so far did not support civil rights charges against Officer Wilson".  This certainly makes it sound to me like their sources were federal as I don't see that local officials would have much knowledge of the federal investigation on civil rights charges.

    That's certainly logical (none / 0) (#62)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:56:56 PM EST
     do you have a link for the NYT article you are citing?

    NYT link (none / 0) (#64)
    by leftwig on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:03:22 PM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#80)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:41:08 PM EST
    will read

    Read the offical autospy report (none / 0) (#153)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 07:18:50 AM EST
    In the narrative is a statement that one of the first things that occurred when the medical investigator arrived on the scene was that he was briefed on what had occurred by a police officer. IOW he was given Officer Wilson's version of the situation that he was attacked by Brown. Doesn't seem that promotes even starting from a position of neutrality.

    Do you think its odd that an (none / 0) (#160)
    by leftwig on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 08:53:40 AM EST
    investigator would be briefed on the scene and given the police narrative when they arrive to investigate?

    I think it would make it harder to come (none / 0) (#164)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 09:11:45 AM EST
    up with an independent analysis after being given "the facts" prior to doing the work.

    People are human. Those "facts" provided by a colleague have been planted in the mind of the person gathering information and giving it weight.

    From Recon's comment:

    In practice, that is often not the case and MEs, similar officials performing such duties and other classes of forensic experts employed by the state assume the role of partisans and are not neutral and will offer or attempt to offer opinions beyond the scope of what their expertise truly permits.

    Follow the money (none / 0) (#177)
    by Palli on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:03:34 AM EST
    Who pays the salary

    In my opinion, there has been very little (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 11:23:02 AM EST
    about this case that has been handled with competence and integrity from the moment Officer Wilson spotted Michael Brown and his friend walking in the middle of the street.  From the incident itself, during which there were multiple points along the way where Wilson had the option to make decisions less likely to escalate the situation, through to the handling of the aftermath of the killing, the conflicting comments by the police chief about what Wilson did or didn't know about the incident at the convenience store, his insistence that this was a tragedy for Wilson, too, the handling of the crime scene, the lack of reports, the refusal of McCulloch to recuse himself, the decision to treat the grand jury as an investigative body rather than a deliberative one - no one should be surprised about the leaks.  Or that they seem to favor Wilson's version of what happened.

    The first unusual decision taken by the prosecutor's office, experts say, was not to recommend a specific charge for Wilson. Instead, the prosecutors are presenting evidence as it becomes available, and leaving it up to the grand jury to decide what the evidence warrants.

    To some members of the community, the decision was taken as a sign that McCulloch may be trying to avoid an indictment. "To present a case to a grand jury, without any direction or instructions with regard to what you want them to achieve," says Adolphus Pruitt of the St. Louis NAACP, "gives the best odds that an indictment will not occur."

    McCulloch has ordered that all testimony in the case be transcribed. This is rare, because it can be used against witnesses in future legal proceedings. In addition, McCulloch has pledged to immediately release full transcripts and audio recordings of the panel's testimony in the absence of an indictment. This too is highly unusual.


    I think the entire thing can be summed up in one word: sh!tshow.  I'm not saying that Wilson should be indicted just to satisfy the community, if the evidence doesn't warrant it, but I am saying that the way this has all been handled doesn't give me much confidence that this part of the process is being handled with more competence than that with which any of what preceded it was handled.

    Grand juries (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 11:37:09 AM EST
    ARE investigative bodies.  That's what they do. They are not "deliberative" in the way I think you mean - they are not determining guilt or innocence at this level. Their job is to see if enough evidence exists to offer up an indictment.

    The grand jury both investigates and (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 11:53:25 AM EST

    Yes, I know (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:00:53 PM EST
    But I think (and I could be wrong here) but the point was there was no "decision" to "treat the grand jury as an investigative body rather than a deliberative one".  They ARE an investigative body who then also deliberates, but not in the way a regular petit jury does during a trial.

    My grand jury... (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 02:01:25 PM EST
    deliberated, but we did not investigate a damn thing, nor do I recall instructions that we could conduct our own investigations.  We were presented with the results of police investigations, and deliberated if said investigations warranted criminal charges.

    If I knew we were allowed to review evidence or visit a crime scene, I woulda been all over that sh&t! ;)


    Maybe the problem is semantics: (none / 0) (#36)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:33:18 PM EST
    the GJ is not gathering evidence or information - they are receiving the product of what others have gathered, and hearing testimony.  And whether they are receiving all of it, or only that which the prosecutor decides is relevant is open to question.  

    So, here's a question: do prosecutors and district attorneys normally empanel a grand jury without indicating what charges may or are being sought?  And then proceed to just inundate them with evidence and information with no guidance about where the prosecutor thinks the evidence points?

    Grand juries may not determine guilt or innocence, but they do deliberate and determine whether what has been presented to them is sufficient to charge someone with a crime - with the key here being "what has been presented to them."  Please let us not forget that in another case, McCulloch was already been found to have withheld and misrepresented evidence in order to get the charge he wanted.

    But I don't think, in this case, he wants charges.  I think that's why he's running the grand jury the way he is - he wants to be able to put this at their feet.  It would be like me removing all the page numbers from a copy of War and Peace, taking them out of their binding, and every day presenting some random portion of them to a group of people to see if they can put it all together in a recognizable, coherent way.  And if the pages are out of order, or the book makes no sense, well, then it isn't going to be my fault if they couldn't get it right - I gave them "all the information," right?


    You have no idea how he's running the GJ (4.00 / 4) (#39)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:39:07 PM EST
    And for the record, GJ's aren't full of sheep.  They generally have subpoena power (not sure how it is in Missouri), and they can ask questions of witnesses.

    And there's no defense case presented.

    Politically, I'm not sure what good you think it would do for McCullogh's office to "half-a$$" it on this case.  Yes, he needs to work with the police, but they have to work with him and he's not going anywhere for the foreseeable future.  What possibly makes you think he's just "phoning it in" besides the meme that has overtaken the liberal blogosphere?


    Please don't put quotation marks around (4.25 / 4) (#41)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:54:31 PM EST
    words and phrases I didn't use in my comment; it has the effect of misrepresenting what I said.

    As for the rest of your comment:

    (1) I never said or suggested the members of the grand jury were sheep.  It is true, though, that whether it's a grand jury or a regular jury, those hearing what is being presented can only make decisions based on what they are being presented with.  Does that make them sheep?  Not necessarily - but with no presentation of contradictory evidence or information, it wouldn't be hard to lead a group of people to the conclusion you wanted them to reach.

    (2)  I never mentioned the politics of anything, nor that McCulloch was "half-a$$ing" the GJ aspect of this case.

    (3)  I don't know who said or thinks McCulloch is "phoning it in," but it wasn't me.  I think, if you want to know, that this is a deliberate technique being used to accomplish two things: appear to be providing the GJ with "all the information," and get no indictment.

    In general, this comment of yours is beneath you in the level of dishonesty and misrepresentation it contains.


    Seriously? (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:18:04 PM EST
    Every time you bring up McCollough, you are filled with derision and keep commenting about how he's presenting the case to the GJ. You have absolutely no idea, and since you didn't contend that point, you obviously agree with me. You are merely speculating on what you think is happening inside that GJ room (if McCullough is indeed, presenting some or all of the case to begin with, instead of some of his assistants), based on nothing other than your own perception and what you want to believe, so if there's no indictment, you can say the game was rigged from the beginning.

    (1) I never said or suggested the members of the grand jury were sheep.  It is true, though, that whether it's a grand jury or a regular jury, those hearing what is being presented can only make decisions based on what they are being presented with.  Does that make them sheep?  Not necessarily - but with no presentation of contradictory evidence or information, it wouldn't be hard to lead a group of people to the conclusion you wanted them to reach.

    Right - there's no contradictory evidence - like anyone contradicting all those other eyewitnesses who have been all over TV.  That should definitely work in the prosecution's favor to indict.

    (2)  I never mentioned the politics of anything, nor that McCulloch was "half-a$$ing" the GJ aspect of this case.

    Certainly implied, every time you claim you know how the evidence is being presented and how the GJ is being run. You may have never used that term, but your meaning is clear.

    (3)  I don't know who said or thinks McCulloch is "phoning it in," but it wasn't me.  I think, if you want to know, that this is a deliberate technique being used to accomplish two things: appear to be providing the GJ with "all the information," and get no indictment.

    Again - you have not explained how you think it would be good for McCullough to not give it his all. There is one case in his past that everyone keeps pointing to that, while it may raise questions, is not the entire package.  People also like to say he can't be fair because his police officer father was killed by a black man.  That's so offensive, I don't even know where to start.  So please explain, how does it benefit McCullough to not present the best case possible, especially because everything is going to be released after the fact so the public and media can comb through it?

    As for the "quotes" were not about what you said, but only used since I was using slang.  It wasn't putting words in your mouth.  In this case, I am calling you out for consistently stating opinion and speculation as fact, and if you think that's dishonest of me, well, I return the compliment and say that your comments about this topic are well below your usual standard of carefulness, thoroughness, and accuracy.


    "Every time" I bring up McCulloch? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    I think I've made a handful of comments, including the ones I've made here, and I think today is the first time I've made any comments about the grand jury; you must have me confused with someone else.

    My comments about McCulloch, few as they are, were likely about his refusal to recuse himself from the case.  Given his history, I think that's a fair criticism - and it would be equally valid if it had been Michael Brown who had shot and killed Darren Wilson.

    It's bad enough that you feel justified in putting words in my mouth, but now you are predicting what I will think in the future - that is an amazing talent!

    That you are inferring something from what I'm saying does not mean that that is what I am implying - it doesn't mean that I am even implying at all, actually, since I usually just come right out and state what I think.  I can't stop you from inferring until the cows come home, but that's something you need to own, - that's not on me.

    Your entire comment is a magnum opus of deflection and conflation and dishonesty.  I haven't made the claims you've charged me with making, I haven't ever said that I think it would be good for McCulloch not to give his all.  I do think he should have recused himself, not just because of his personal family history, but because it isn't just this one case with McCulloch; that history seems to have affected his ability to bring indictments - or even seek them - in almost every case of police-involved shootings in which that has been his decision.  

    And I'm calling bullsh!t on your explanation for your use of quotes; it just doesn't pass the smell test.

    I'm allowed to express my opinions - you don't have to like them.  You don't have to agree that the way I've looked at something is the right way.  You can regard them as a form of speculation, but know that we're all doing it.  It's also happening in that grand jury room, and it happens in courtrooms and trials each and every day.  Information and evidence are presented, and conclusions are drawn - they have to be or nothing moves in any direction.

    That you don't agree with my conclusions isn't preventing you from drawing your own; whether you think yours are more valid because they are based on the facts and the rest of us are just making sh!t up, well, tell yourself whatever you have to, just don't credit me with saying or thinking or believing things based on what's in your head.


    Ok Anne (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 03:22:45 PM EST
    If you want to believe that you have not in this case consistently put forth speculation as fact, I'll leave you to your delusions.

    But you're confused - I'm calling you on your bullsh!t. kind of in the same class as Uncle Chhip.  Sad really, you usually are much better than this.

    I'm sure you or sj will want to get the last word as you always do.  I am done dealing with people who are wearing tightly bound blinders.


    Okay, (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by sj on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 04:41:55 PM EST
    I'll take the last word. Or one of them. Even though the following statement is another flat out "misrepresentation" completely devoid of honesty.
    I'm sure you or sj will want to get the last word as you always do.
    Neither Anne nor I are confused at all.

    We both are totally aware that we are not sitting in a courtroom.

    We both are totally aware that we will not be rendering a verdict of any sort on this case.

    We are both totally aware that lots of witnesses who have never been under oath have said lots of things.

    I am pretty sure that we are both totally aware that memory provides a subjective truth and, as such, should be weighed against other factors and other witnesses.

    IMO your bias in favor of authority is what gives you blinders (and twisted knickers) and leads to your dishonest shout-downs when others apply analysis to data as it rolls in.

    You are just as stubbornly rigid in your support of authority as Chip is in his dismissal of it. You are both boring so I usually ignore you both. I wouldn't would have now commented now but you started putting words in the mouths of other commenters. Including me.

    A fault that Uncle Chip doesn't really have, frankly.


    Jbindc: So what inside knowledge do you have (none / 0) (#49)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:31:22 PM EST
    about how the case of the whether to Indict or not indict  Wilson is being presented?  Anne is repeating the common impression of most people regarding this legal process in St. Louis County.

    Forgotten in this mess is that McCullouh deliberately held over these Grand Jurors past their release date specifically because of this case.  A new GJ was not impaneled at the normal designated time.


    I don't have any (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:37:51 PM EST
    Anne is repeating the common impression of most people regarding this legal process in St. Louis County.

    "Common impression" are the key words here.  They are speculating, and she is parroting them as fact.

    That's my point.


    What "uncommon" evidence do you have? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:47:57 PM EST
    That's my point.

    We are talking about "impressions" (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:52:07 PM EST
    Your word, not mine. Not "evidence" . Please don't confuse the two.

    Everyone making these statements are basing it on their "impressions" as they have no idea what is actually going on in the GJ room. So anyone who is then taking these "impressions" and repeating them as fact, is also fair game to be called out.


    so what uncommon "impressions" (none / 0) (#110)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 04:34:53 PM EST
    make you speak so authoritatively?

    Speculating suddenly not okay? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 07:53:03 PM EST
    Like the person making this claim?:

    At least one witness is caught on video at the exact moment indicating that Brown was charging at Wilson.

    Did the person making that claim... (none / 0) (#147)
    by unitron on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 10:55:03 PM EST
    ...go on to explain the meaning of the sentence which you quoted?

    Because it makes it sound as though it was the moment, rather than the witness, which indicated that Brown charged Wilson.

    Could you provide a link to wherever you got whatever that was?


    Just to be clear... (none / 0) (#146)
    by unitron on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 10:50:07 PM EST
    ...the then currently sitting grand jury was handed this case before their term was up, and their term was extended to accommodate the demands of hearing this case.

    It's not like they were extended and then handed the case just so empaneling a new grand jury could be avoided.


    There are knowledgeable people (none / 0) (#154)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 07:46:36 AM EST
    who question the unusual way that this particular Grand Jury is being conducted.

    Richard Kuhns, an emeritus professor at Washington University Law School, said he was concerned by media reports that McCulloch's office is flooding the grand jury with witnesses without providing legal direction. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post maintained that this approach is a "farce" and proof the "fix" is in to clear Wilson.
    But Kuhns questioned McCulloch's approach. "Since he presumably doesn't do this with other cases, the not so hidden message must be `don't indict.'  One more reason why McCulloch should never have been in charge of the investigation."

    Providing the grand jury with every bit of evidence is "simply a way for prosecutors to avoid responsibility for decision-making," he said.  "More important, in this case McCulloch apparently made the decision to proceed in this manner without having any idea what the fullness of the evidence would show.  That is the height of irresponsibility.

    "Moreover, as I understand it from the news reports, that irresponsibility has been continued:  the evidence is being presented as it has become available without any effort to provide narrative context to what is being presented." link

    Former federal prosecutor (none / 0) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 07:57:28 AM EST
    Alex Little, a former federal prosecutor who spent six years trying violent crimes, including homicides, has criticized that strategy, and said that this news raises concerns about the local
    prosecutor's commitment to pursuing the case.
    Grand jurors vote on indictments that are presented to them by the District Attorney's Office. They can rely on hearsay, such as summaries of witness statements and other reports, and almost always do. The practical effect of allowing the grand jury to rely on hearsay is to speed the process along. And there is no obligation for prosecutors to present possible defenses to the grand jury. The only question the grand jury must answer is whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has occurred. That's a very low standard, and it's almost always met when the District Attorney seeks charges.

    "So when a District Attorney says, in effect, 'we'll present the evidence and let the grand jury decide,"'that's malarkey. If he takes that approach, then he's already decided to abdicate his role in the process as an advocate for justice. At that point, there's no longer a prosecutor in the room guiding the grand jurors, and -- more importantly -- no state official acting on behalf of the victim, Michael Brown. link

    Let me repeat this former prosecutors statement one more time:

    no state official acting on behalf of the victim, Michael Brown.

    No state official is supposed to (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by leftwig on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 08:20:47 AM EST
    act on anyones behalf.  They are supposed to work for justice, whether it be Brown and his family or Wilson and his.  A prosecutor is not supposed to be on anyones side other than truth.

    I do agree with the point regarding the reason why McCullogh is giving the GJ all the evidence and not pushing them in any direction.  I believe McCullogh doesn't believe there is a legitimate case against Wilson and only convened the GJ due to political pressure.  Maybe it shows his bias, maybe it shows he's a smart prosecutor who knows the law.  I guess once all the evidence is available, we'll know which one it is.


    Well that is your opinion (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 09:30:47 AM EST
    jbindc does not share your opinion any more than Alex Little. jb's opinion:

    Michael Brown's "defense team" is the state of Missouri - not his mouthpieces running around trying to find every camera they can.

    As to when all evidence is available, there will never be a time when all the facts are known.

    We and the Grand Jury will have what evidence that McCulloch decides to present and it will be presented in the manner he wants to present it. And much of what will be "known" will be "known" based on leaks to the press. These select leaks will be what the evidence. There will be no lawyer disputing "the facts" as present by the prosecutors office.

    Going back once more to the only other case where McCulloch conducted a GJ on police justification on killing two unarmed blacks:

    Fourteen years ago, the two officers who shot Murray and Beasley were also invited to testify before the grand jury. Both men told jurors that Murray's car was coming at them and that they feared being run over. McCulloch said that "every witness who was out there testified that it made some forward motion." But a later federal investigation showed that the car had never come at the two officers: Murray never took his car out of reverse.  

    Did every witness who was there testify that the car came forward? No they did not.

    Out of 13 witnesses, only 3 testified that the car moved forward. The two who unloaded their guns and a third whose testimony was, as McCulloch admitted later, "obviously...completely wrong.

    Did the prosecutor's office put the victims of the shooting on trial as part of the GJ. Why yes, they did.

    On the last day of testimony, an investigator in McCulloch's office read out a list of every interaction Murray and Beasley had had with law enforcement, even arrests that never resulted in charges.




    I don't think so (none / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 07:17:36 PM EST
    And whether they are receiving all of it, or only that which the prosecutor decides is relevant is open to question.  

    A grand jury can subpoena anyone/thing they choose.


    The Grand Jury (none / 0) (#173)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:29:36 AM EST
    A grand jury can subpoena anyone/thing they choose.

    Then this Grand Jury should subpoena the reporters for the Post Dispatch to find out where they got their "leaked" information for their stories and that autopsy report that the County ME said did not come from her office.

    These leaks should lead to indictments of the leakers.


    To me, Mr. McCulloch's decision (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 11:52:15 AM EST
    to make the transcripts and recordings available to public in the event the grand jury does not indict Officer Wilson is laudable. It makes the process in t his case transparent for all who care to study it.  

    I think so too (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:13:07 PM EST
    I think when all is said and done, no matter what the outcome, we will learn that much more evidence was presented than is normal for most grand juries.  Add to that, the target of the investigation testified (which is also not common) without the assistance of counsel, and under the auspices of the Rules of Evidence are greatly loosened.

    I would say if he is not indicted, the release of these documents will show that no rational person could complain about the process (although some people still will).


    I doubt those who always thought (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:23:32 PM EST
    Officer Wilson should be charged and convicted will change there minds based on the transcripts and recordings.

    I do too (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:27:38 PM EST
    That's what's sad.  There could be testimony from God Almighty himself and some minds would never be convinced.

    But what I think this will show is that McCullough also knows what criticism is out there against him, and his office presented everything they have.  If there's no evidence (or believable evidence) to indict, then there's no evidence.  And considering the burden is pretty low to indict, if the GJ can't even make that threshold, then I'm not sure what those people want, besides blood.


    "That's what's sad." (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:35:06 PM EST
    You have not been paying attention.

    Missouri (none / 0) (#57)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:48:55 PM EST
      must have some atypical laws. I have never practiced in a jurisdiction where the prosecutor is allowed to release any grand jury information without a court order. Even when the defendant who has been indicted wants the transcript, a court order is required every place I've been.. In federal court, it is usually the US. Attorney who files a motion under Rule 6 (e)(3)(E)for permission to provide the transcript to defense counsel and we receive it under a protective order making it illegal for us to disclose it.

      In state courts, I have usually had to file the motions under whatever the state counterpart to Rule 6 (e) exists. Some courts make you make a showing that is unfairly rigorous to get the GJ transcript (essentially provide evidence of an irregularity when as a matter of logic  one can't make the showing without having the transcript)

      I digress, but my point was I've never practiced where a prosecutor has discretion to publicly disclose a transcript to the public.

    Federal Rule 6 allows the prosecutor to disclose GJ info (but not the actual deliberations) to other governmental bodies in limited situations (as does 18 USC 3322) but not to the public.


    Missouri statutes include: (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:40:09 PM EST
    Reporter to record testimony--oath.
    540.105. An official reporter of the circuit court, when directed by the judge thereof, shall take down and transcribe for the use of the prosecuting or circuit attorney any or all evidence given before the grand jury. Before taking down any such evidence, however, such reporter shall be sworn by the foreperson of such grand jury not to divulge any of the proceedings or testimony before the grand jury or the names of any witnesses except to the prosecuting or circuit attorney or to any attorney lawfully assisting him in the prosecution of an indictment brought by such grand jury.

    (L. 1951 p. 460, A.L. 1989 S.B. 127, et al.)

    Grand jury proceeding to be recorded, when--transcript to defendant.
    540.106. Any grand jury proceeding that includes testimony or other information from a witness who is granted immunity from prosecution shall be a recorded proceeding. In the event a person is indicted as a result of such immunized testimony, the prosecutor shall provide a transcription of such testimony to all defendants.

    (L. 1997 H.B. 339)


    I do not have your legal expertise (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 08:07:53 AM EST
    but per reports McCulloch has put conditions on the release of the information.

    Bob McCulloch, the St. Louis prosecutor investigating the shooting death of Michael Brown, promises to release transcripts and audio of grand jury proceedings on two conditions: (1) the grand jury elects not to indict Darren Wilson, the white police officer who shot and killed the unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Missouri last month, and (2) McCulloch gets judicial permission to do so, the prosecutor's spokesman confirmed to msnbc late Tuesday. link

    I looked at thhose and the other statutes (none / 0) (#81)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:48:46 PM EST
     and at the Missouri rules of Criminal Procedure, and could find nothing that directly spoke to the prosecutor's duties and  obligations, or permissions to disclose, with respect to GJ proceedings to the public (or to anyone other than defendant) without a court order.

      I assume there is case law, but have not undertaken that because it would be time consuming.


    I no longer have access to Lexus or Westlaw. (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 04:13:47 PM EST
    I also assume the transcript and tapes would only be released pursuant to court order.

    When all evidence is piled on the GJ (none / 0) (#128)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 07:32:43 PM EST
    WILL that serve to prevent any possible second presentation to another GJ in the future? Can it serve to prevent the interpretation evidence?

    no (none / 0) (#135)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 09:17:16 PM EST
    Double jropardy would not spply.

    Reconstructionist, thanks (none / 0) (#137)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 09:28:08 PM EST
    But with the info we have now, regardless of the competence or lack thereof of the investigation, I don't see anything that would make Wilson legally culpable.

    Another travesty (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by sj on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:53:12 PM EST
    I don't see anything that would make Wilson legally culpable.

    Ease tensions (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Jack203 on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:03:14 AM EST
    It appears to me likely the leaks were federal to ease tensions with an enraged mob.

    The most interesting leak is the half dozen black witnesses who have "corroborated Officer Wilson's" testimony, but are afraid to come public because of fear of retribution from the mob.

    If the leaks are true.  There will not even be an indictment.  Let alone have the evidence anywhere remotely close to surpassing the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt.

    I don't expect the inevitable rioting to be that big of deal in Ferguson.  Most of America will just ignore the agitators.  You can't appease the professional aggrieved, so don't even try.  

    Troll Jack203 (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Palli on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:13:52 AM EST
    "You can't appease the professional aggrieved Law Enforcement & groupies  community, so don't even try."  

    I hadn't seen this account anywhere (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by leftwig on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 03:25:25 PM EST
    nor heard it referenced here.  ITs an acocunt given by a witness who says they testified before the GJ.  He says that its his belief that the officer murdered Brown, but the account is much different than others that are public and is probably one of the accounts being quoted that largely supports Wilsons version.  

    Anonymous GJ witness

    • the witness saw an altercation at the car, couldn't see much.  
    • Saw Brown take off after hearing one shot.
    • Says Wilson ran after Brown yelling for him to stop.
    • Brown stopped, turned around and mumbled something that he could not make out
    • Wilson did not fire at Brown until Brown turned around and moved towards him.  
    • Brown took a step toward Wilson, arms out to the side with palms raised.
    • Wilson told him to stop again
    • Wilson fired 3 shots at least one of which hit Brown
    • Wilson backed up and yelled for Brown to stop again
    -Brown continued to move forward, stumbling, trying to "catch his feet".
    - Brown was 20-25 feet from the officer and moving toward him as last shots were fired.

    it is the one that describes Browns arms and hands at the end as
    this witness said Brown never put his hands straight up, but held his elbows straight out from his torso, with palms turned up in a sort of gesture of disbelief.

    Boiling down (4.67 / 3) (#123)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 06:15:55 PM EST
    My opinion:

    1.We have a homicide. No question.

    2.The homicide was committed by intentional use of a deadly weapon and the person who employed the deadly weapon understood the likely consequences of doing so.

    3.There exists a  presumption that the person intended the likely consequence of his action.

    4.Thus we have an intentional killing.

    5.The remaining questions are state of mind and reasonableness of the actions.

    6.I don't think first degree murder appears supportable unless the published reports prove to be very inaccurate.

    7.From second degree to lawful self-defense, I think no potential findings have been eliminated by what we (think we)know at this time.

    8.I think the critical issue is what was happening at the time and immediately   before the officer fired the fatal shot[s].

    9.Even if Brown attacked him in the car and deploying the weapon at that time was totally justified, Wilson could still be guilty of some degree of homicide. Those events are probative to a degree of his subjective  fear and the objective reasonableness of it, but far from dispositve.

    10.There are obviously large and significant differences in the accounts from witnesses.

    11.At this time, we have no real way of evaluating the accounts   based on anything but general  biases and prejudices.

    12.Based on what limited information I have, I don't see the physical evidence disclosed to date  as helping much to determine whether Wilson was justified in firing the fatal shot[s].

    13.One thing that makes me think this case needs to go to a jury is precisely that the key issues seem to depend primarily on credibility determinations. A no true bill does send the message that a self-interested cop's word outweighs other testimony.

    14.That feeling is buttressed by the observation  that it is not typical behavior for a wounded and unarmed man to attempt to rush a person who is shooting at him. That is especially true if there is a distance to traverse which would allow time for multiple more shots. That's not saying it could not have happened that way, but it would definitely weigh heavily in my personal determination of whether probable cause exists to indict for a homicide offense.

    It also doesn't seem to me to be (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 06:41:29 PM EST
    typical behavior for a young adult (who has ingested marijuana) to grab for a law enforcement officer's loaded service revolver while the officer is in the patrol vehicle and the young adult is outside of that vehicle.

    That's correct, therefore, (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 07:46:49 PM EST
    the only logical conclusion would be that Officer Wilson concocted a self-serving fabrication in order to prevent being indicted for perpetrating an unjustified homicide.

    That's laudable of you, oculus; up until this conclusion you stated I would've sworn you had accepted Wilson's false statements as valid.


    Not so fast! In a federal civil rights case (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 07:57:42 PM EST
    I defended, a young adult male (mj seller), who was living w/his mother, had his loaded pistol aimed at his closed bedroom door when law enforcement arrived at the house w/a search warrant. He was propped up on his bed facing the door. When an officer opened the door, the young man fired the pistol at the officer. The young man was killed by an officer immediately shooting him.

    As we so often are told here, the brain isn't fully mature at age 18.


    Absolutely. And, if the facts you've (none / 0) (#150)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 01:37:31 AM EST
    recounted here are, in fact, undisputed facts, then, it seems that the officer's shooting was justified.

    I am in complete agreement on 1-11 (none / 0) (#127)
    by leftwig on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 07:26:11 PM EST
    On 12, I agree with the statement but would also add that I don't believe in the limited information available to determine that  Wilsons actions were not justified.  Even of the known witnesses, we have differences on whether Brown was moving toward Wilson or standing/kneeling and whether Wilson was moving forward, standing still or retreating.  Being a legal site, I believe all here agree that when testimony is inconclusive, the defendant receives the benefit of the doubt.

    On 13, I'd say it depends on what the evidence is.  IF the GJ has all the evidence then I have no problem accepting their decision on whether or not to indict.

    On 14, I don't disagree for the average person and would add the same goes for Wilsons potential actions.  It would be atypical for a police officer to walk up to a person who is surrendering and execute them.  In this case, we don't know either persons complete past to understand which one might be more likely.  We do have Browns actions on video from a few minutes early displaying atypical behavior.


    I don't believe (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 09:34:14 AM EST
      that Wilson walked up to him and "executed" Brown, given the connotations that word carries.

      That would be 1st degree murder, which as I said I don't see being applicable unless virtually all the accounts of what various witnesses are described as saying.

      It does not have to be a calculated "cold-blooded" killing to be a crime. If you intentionally kill a person without lawful justification, you have committed some degree of homicide. Justification (in this case self-defense or of others) is an affirmative defense.

     If a case goes to trial, the prosecution initially has the burden of presenting a prima facie case establishing establishing every essential element of the crime charged (that means admissible evidence if fully credited   which would prove every element including the requisite intent). If the prosecution fails to do that, then the judge should grant the defense motion for a judgment of acquittal (directed verdict) without the defense having to put on any case.

      If the prosecution has introduced evidence which (if fully credited) establishes each element then the defendant presents his evidence. With an affirmative defense, the defendant has the burden of production to present admissible evidence  which  would allow for a fact-finder to decide that the elements of the justification defense exist. If he fails to do that then the judge would not instruct the jury as to the affirmative defense. If the defendant meets that burden of production then the burden of proof is on the prosecution to rebut the affirmative defense, and the jury will be instructed that it must find that the prosecution has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that every element of the offense has been and that it has rebutted the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

      There are case where private citizens have intentionally killed people and the only issue is the justification affirmative defense but charges are not filed or a grand jury declines to indict. On the other hand, I think people reasonably suspect that if everything about this case was exactly the same save for the fact that Wilson is a police officer, it would be considerably less likely the shooter would not be indicted and required to defend himself at trial as I have described above.

      Self-defense (or of others) is a possible inference) given the reported descriptions of the shooting. It's not the only possible inference. One could quite reasonably infer that Wilson shot Brown because he was angry that Brown accosted him and did not reasonably fear for his life or safety or that of others at the moment he fired the fatal shot(s). Another possible inference is  that the emotion motivating his action was not anger personally directed at Brown but that his response to a startling and chaotic encounter was an unreasonable over-reaction and an unjustified use of deadly force. Those are just 2 of the most obvious examples.

      The GJ is only charged with finding whether probable cause exists and whether  the case should proceed to the trial stage. Given the very low threshold for probable cause and that in cases not involving cops prosecutors frequently do not present "unhelpful" evidence either casting doubt on evidence supporting the elements of offenses or supporting affirmative defenses.

    Many many people are indicted without even being informed a grand jury is considering their case. I say without fear of contradiction that the norm is for a prosecutor to call only those witnesses he believes minimally necessary to get a probable cause (true bill) finding by the needed majority of jurors making no attempt to present a "balanced" or complete exposition of the evidence. It's also quite common for the accused  not be to be a afforded opportunity to appear and give their side (in fairness, it should also be noted that the accused are frequently advised not to appear and testify when asked).

       The "special" treatment often afforded cops does not mean that decisions not to ndict are therefore conclusively "wrong" but it is reason for even those who are not irrevocably predisposed to distrust all cops and prosecutors to question things.


    There is a lot to digest in this post. (none / 0) (#175)
    by leftwig on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:34:12 AM EST
    Let me point out that my comment about Wilson walking up to Brown and executing him was not a response to anything in your post, but to statements made by witnesses in the press and what Brown family lawyers have suggested occurred.  I meerely brought it up to suggest that not only would it be atypical for the average person to attack a police officer with a gun, it would be just as atypical for an officer to pull a gun and start shooting at someone for no reason, then walk up to them and shoot them down even as they are surrenduring.

    I do agree that there is a range of possibilities given what we know and that the shooting can be illegal without Wilson walking up and executing him (ie, if Brown was no threat to anyone and/or was surrendering).  I also don't dispute that in general, a prosecutor will give a GJ only what he thinks is necessary to get an indictment because because he believes an indictment is justified (not discounting some prosecutors doing this for nefarious reasons).  That is why I say in this case, I think the action of the prosecutor giving all the evidence to the GJ likely means he never would have filed charges in the case or put it before the GJ and is only doing so because of the politicized nature of the case.  I am not saying the prosecutor is correct in doing so because we aren't privy to all the evidence at this time, its just my opinion on how he's acted up to this point.


    Yeah, i basically agree with that (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:34:52 AM EST
      I'm not saying that this prosecutor is acting differently and wrongly in this case. I'm just saying he is acting differently than I strongly believe he would if this was not a cop shooting. I'll reserve judgment until I have a reasonable basis for making assertions to right and wrong and I presume neither.

     Largely what I have been attempting to encourage with my posts is that people put aside their emotional prejudices. I'm not someone who makes up my mind the minute I learn a white cop shot a black man and who then selectively presents and frames everything to reinforce my emotionally reached prejudgment and I think when those that do dominate discussion that discussion suffers greatly.  People, including me,  have emotions and prejudices  and they always influence us to some degree. The key isn't eliminating them because that is impossible but to acknowledge them and view things that challenge them with an open mind.

      Obviously, these discussion here tend to divide between those who more or less automatically assume it has to be a case of a racist white cop wrongfully killing a  black man and those who equally automatically assume it had to be a case of a black thug forcing a cop to do something that the cop would never do unless he had no other reasonable choice. A relative handful wish to discuss it with any degree of calm objectivity. I'm mostly just trying to steer it in that direction.



    You have no category for those of us (none / 0) (#186)
    by Palli on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:46:49 AM EST
    who more or less automatically assume it has to be a case of a cop wrongfully killing a young or old person who is unarmed and too far away to be dangerous.

    Law enforcement is not the most dangerous profession in the county...shooting to kill is capital punishment by cop.


    OK, (none / 0) (#194)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:25:39 PM EST
      you just created one for people who prejudge emotionally on  a broader basis. I admit I probably understated the problem.

    We know somethings about Wilson (2.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 08:27:56 PM EST
    We know Wilson began his career as police officer with 3 years at work a PD that had to be completely disbanded by the city of Jennings MO because of police misconduct- racism and abuse of the use of force. We know that there have been accusations against him for inappropriate use of force. (A case before the GJ had to be postponed because he would not come out of hiding to testify. Incidentally that refers to the same arrest for which he received the commendation he is holding in the only photo of him that has been found by journalists. There was no Use of Force Report in that case either although the Police Procedural Manual requires it.)  

    For what it is worth in a social context: We know Wilson's internet presence was totally scrubbed within  a few hours of the killing.  We know he has a friend aka Josie willing to lie for him, other friends who have no photoshop skills and fraudulently use a University of Iowa instructional X-ray pretending it was Wilson's X-ray. We know some basic information about his mother. He was 16 when his father died. We know he is hiding on a  paid vacation

    http://www.commdiginews.com/news-2/details-emerge-about-darren-wilson-officer-involved-in-michael-br own-shooting-24049/


    Seems to me you are speculating o nthings that (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by leftwig on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 08:57:09 PM EST
    haven't happened (Wilson guilty of inappropriate use of force) or doesn't exist (Wilsons internet presence).  Is there a reason you trying to stretch so far?  

    please (none / 0) (#136)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 09:26:46 PM EST
    Accusations that convinced a judge to send the case to the GJ.

    You do understand that its the drug case (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by leftwig on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 10:26:44 PM EST
    against Brooks that has been sent to a GJ to determine whether the Brooks should be indicted, correct?  That GJ isn't being empaneled to determine whether Wilson "roughed up" Brooks as Brooks lawyer now alleges.

    yes (none / 0) (#180)
    by Palli on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:27:16 AM EST
    Accussations are not part of the defense should the case proceed at some point in time when Wilson emerges.

    change "not" to now (none / 0) (#181)
    by Palli on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:32:34 AM EST
    Bad typing-not a freudian slip...accusations are now..."

    FPD is historically lax regarding Use of Force Reports anyway


    Whether Wilson "roughed up" Brooks (none / 0) (#193)
    by leftwig on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:20:29 PM EST
    while making the arrest is irrelevant to the case against Brooks.  The GJ is hearing the case against Brooks and thats why Wilson is being called to testify.  If Brooks has a complaint against the way he was treated by Wilson, it will be a separate case than the one currently before the grand jury.  Wilson is not the subject of that inquiry.

    Someone already pointed this possibility out (none / 0) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49:33 AM EST
    It may or may not have been you.

    Evidently the so called indisputable evidence cited here as proof positive that Brown went for Wilson's gun is disputable after all.

    The key piece of Melinek's analysis, according to the Post-Dispatch's original report, was that the report of Brown's autopsy "supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound. If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he's going for the officer's gun."
    But Melinek told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Wednesday that her comments had been taken "out of context" and that she believed the findings could be explained by other scenarios as well.

    "What happens sometimes is when you get interviewed and you have a long conversation with a journalist, they're going to take things out of context," she said. "I made it very clear that we only have partial information here. We don't have the scene information. We don't have the police investigation. We don't have all the witness statements. And you can't interpret autopsy findings in a vacuum."
    She and O'Donnell then walked through a variety of alternative situations in which the gunshot residue found on Brown's hand -- the key finding that suggested Brown had been reaching for Wilson's gun -- could have gotten there. link

    It was me (none / 0) (#190)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:10:37 PM EST
    As I said, all a ME or any forensic pathologist can reliably  opine to is the distance between and relative positions (to each other not in relation to other things) of the gun and hand.

     I'm glad she backtracked but given her quote from the other day, it would be more accurate to shay she misspoke not that her comment was taken out of context.


    Yeah, my take on what she is saying (none / 0) (#195)
    by leftwig on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:29:45 PM EST
    is that GSR being found in the wound and the trajectory of the bullet up the thump towards the wrist are consistent with Wilsons account of Brown going for or even having ahold of the gun when it was fired.  It does not prove that Brown necessarily was reaching for the gun, but that its a reasonable possibility.  

    According to her statements on The Last Word (none / 0) (#196)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 01:16:08 PM EST
    a variety of alternative situations would also provide a reasonable explanation for the gunshot residue found on Brown's hand.



    I don't disagree that there are other (none / 0) (#198)
    by leftwig on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 01:44:16 PM EST
    possibilities, but just out of curiosity what were the other explanations she offered for the gun going off within inches of Browns thumb?  Do any of them fit Dorian Johnsons statements?

    Another scenario which is just as (none / 0) (#199)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 01:45:43 PM EST
    possible according to Melinek is that Brown was trying to protect himself from Wilson's gun.

    Melinek added that the only statement she compared to the forensic evidence was that made by Wilson and that a number of other scenarios could also be possible, including Brown trying to protect himself or his hands for whatever reason being near the muzzle of Wilson's gun.
    All but one of the gunshots, Melinek said, seem to have struck Brown in the front of his body, which is consistent with witnesses who said Brown had been facing Wilson when he was shot. Depending on any witnesses physical proximity to the shooting, Brown could have been turning to Wilson in surrender, stumbling toward him after being shot or charging him.

    The shot to the back of Brown's upper arm, Melinek said, suggested he could have been shot from behind. link

    this whole case starts and ends, (4.00 / 3) (#2)
    by cpinva on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 10:04:35 PM EST
    with an out of control police officer, officer Wilson. for whatever reason, officer Wilson chose to take what amounts to a jaywalking incident, and by the time he's done, he has single-handidly escalated it to the level of a capital crime, ending with the death, by multiple gunshot wounds, of mr. brown. at no point during the incident, did officer Wilson follow generically standard police procedures.

    this abject failure, resulting in an unnecessary death, also precipitated weeks of angry protests on the streets of ferguson, additional unnecessary costs, both fiscal and physical, and the utter meltdown of every law enforcement agency in the state of MO, as they struggle to protect officer Wilson from having to account for his actions.

    those are facts, undeniable and glaring, and no amount of pooh poohing will make them magically disappear. the hollow, racist core of the state of MO has been exposed to the world. no matter how hard they try, state and local officials can't stuff that genie back in the lamp.

    at no point during the incident, (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 11:37:28 PM EST
    at no point during the incident, did officer Wilson follow generically standard police procedures.

    Good point, Sarcastic (3.50 / 2) (#27)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:12:06 PM EST
    Emptying guns at unarmed civilians is standard police procedure nowadays.

    However, there remain some valid grounds for criticizing Officer Wilson.

    You and your fellow right wingers can rightly criticize his poor marksmanship.  Only one third of his rounds actually hit the unarmed boy.  Tsk, tsk.

    And I, being an unrepentant, albeit sometimes reluctant, liberal, can whinge about the greenhouse gases produced by the cartridges that missed.  Clearly unnecessary and environmentally challenging



    The clear sign (4.25 / 4) (#35)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:30:51 PM EST
    when you have no argument to stand on - resort to the dreaded "right winger" meme.

    Or pretend to be quoting someone's words (4.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:09:25 PM EST
    in an effort to misrepresent what someone said and make the argument you want.

    Here's what it all comes down to for me: Officer Wilson, from the moment he encountered Brown and Johnson in the middle of the street, made one bad decision after another.  And the cumulative effect of those decisions was the killing of an unarmed young man.

    He was the one in the vehicle, he was the one with the weapon, he was the one with a radio to call for assistance.  He acted with aggression from the get-go.  He didn't start the interaction as "Officer Friendly, Here To Protect and Serve," but as a bully wearing a uniform, carrying a weapon and driving an SUV.  It was the culture of the PD from which he came, and the culture of the one in which he was working.

    In fear for his life?  Does that count if he was the one whose decisions and actions created the situation where that might be the result?

    One of these days, someone will have to explain to me how one fears for his life when the person he allegedly fears is running away from him.


    And there is a bit of disagreement about when exactly Wilson started acting "aggressively."

    As there is no impartial video recording of the beginning of the incident for us bystanders to watch and make judgements on, all we have are Dorian Johnson's story of the events vs Darren Wilson's.


    Yes, the other witness was killed (none / 0) (#59)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:55:34 PM EST
    by the only other witness who saw it all.

    "Factually?" Where can I find (none / 0) (#86)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 03:03:59 PM EST
    that fact?  

    I have read that Wilson said he radioed for assistance; is there some actual proof that he did?  Is there a transcript of a call for assistance, or anything other than "what Darren Wilson said?"

    Well, probably not, as what I have read appears to have come from leaked GJ testimony.

    If all it takes to make something a fact is, "Darren Wilson said," then I guess it's a good thing he didn't say the moon was made of cheese or the earth is flat, huh?


    said Wilson called in before the shooting started. But I can't now google any support for that, so agreed that it is only his claim at this point. Certainly one that should be easy to prove or disprove...

    Presumably, they verified his statement.

    JB hits on some of the points, but I (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by leftwig on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:36:15 PM EST
    did want to clarify something.  Wilson does not have to be in fear just for his life at that moment in order to pursue and legally be justified in using deadly force.  Police officers are charged with protecting the public and may legally use deadly force on a fleeing individual if he believes that individual is a threat to the public.  I don't think we know currently whether Wilson shot at Brown as he was fleeing, but if Wilson was justified in shooting Brown while inside the SUV because he reasonably feared for his life, then he would in almost all cases be justified in shooting at Brown as he fled in order to protect the public.  

    Now, obviously that would change if Brown stops and surrenders and if there is one thing I agree with Crump, its that the case against Wilson hinges on whether Brown was surrendering or not when he was shot and killed.


    Actually, the potential state criminal case (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:23:41 PM EST
    against Officer Wilson hinges on whether Wilson  had an objectively reasonable belief Mr. Martin was  a danger to Wilson or others.

    So, Wilson just starts shooting (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 10:05:57 PM EST
    in an area where there are apartments and people in the area, and somehow we're supposed to believe that Michael Brown is the one endangering people's lives?

    Good Lord.


    The test is not "what we are supposed (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 07:09:45 AM EST
    to believe" based on passage of time, media coverage, blogs and comments, discussing the incident, etc.

    I think you are mixing up which (4.25 / 4) (#140)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 09:58:32 PM EST
    unarmed, black teenager was shot.

    Hey, Jack203 (none / 0) (#170)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:12:55 AM EST
    You don't agree with actual facts. A 2 rating denotes disagreement.

    oculus made a mistake in her comment and she gave me a 5 for my remark pointing it out. Maybe a more detailed explanation will help you understand my comment.

    The potential state criminal case against Officer Wilson DOES NOT hinge on whether Wilson had an objectively reasonable belief Mr. Martin was  a danger to Wilson or others.

    That statement was merely a mix-up, an unintentional (I'm sure) mistake. Mr. Martin was another unarmed black teenager who was shot by someone else. He was dead and presented no danger to Wilson or anyone else.

    Now I'm sure that oculus, who is a very intelligent person, understood that my comment was factual. Not sure why you object to facts.


    I suspect Jack also made a mistake b (none / 0) (#174)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:33:00 AM EST
    That is possible (none / 0) (#176)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:43:41 AM EST
    If true your honor, I will redraw my objection to the rating.

    Humor intended.


    or can't tell 'em apart (none / 0) (#183)
    by Palli on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:34:57 AM EST
    Again (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:21:29 PM EST
    You are putting speculation out as fact - all to make the argument YOU want.  Not your usual style.

    Officer Wilson, from the moment he encountered Brown and Johnson in the middle of the street, made one bad decision after another.


    In fear for his life?  Does that count if he was the one whose decisions and actions created the situation where that might be the result?


    One of these days, someone will have to explain to me how one fears for his life when the person he allegedly fears is running away from him.

    Evidence? Or rather, the rest of the story as Paul Harvey would say?


    "When the facts are on your side (4.25 / 4) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:38:04 PM EST
    pound the facts.

    When the facts are not on your side pound the table."

    We hear your table-pounding loud and clear.


    Time was when people had more pride (none / 0) (#61)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:56:00 PM EST
    in their brownshirts.

    "Scared" wasn't acceptable.  Neither was poor marksmanship.

    Well, maybe Wilson's good at shining his boots.


    Don't break the table. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:00:44 PM EST
    lol. Well, you're the authority (2.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 03:19:48 PM EST
    at defending authoritarianism.

    Facts versus opinions (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 08:48:38 AM EST
      based on interpretations of ( or inferences drawn from) selected  facts.

      The only relevant facts you set forth are  that Wilson was a police officer and death resulted from gunshots.

      Irrelevant facts include "weeks of angry protests" and costs.

      Everything else is pure opinion.

      I don't mean to single you out because numerous people on both sides are doing this, but it adds very little but heat to the discussion.


    gee, that isn't what the news reports and (1.50 / 2) (#26)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:04:46 PM EST
    eyewitnesses say.

    "Everything else is pure opinion."


    1. Officer Wilson is an officer of the ferguson, MO police dept.

    2. Officer Wilson (by his own admission) saw mr. brown and his friend walking in the middle of the street.

    3. Officer Wilson (again, by his own admission) stopped his vehicle, and yelled at the two young men to get on the sidewalk.

    4. Mr. Brown and his friend made some dergatory comments (by the friend's admission) to officer wilson, and continued walking down the middle of the street because (according to the friend) they were only a short distance from home.

    5. Officer wilson continued on, then stopped, reversed, and drove back to brown and his friend, nearly hitting brown. not standard police procedure.

    6. officer wilson attempted to open his door. because the car was so close to brown, it bounced off him and closed.

    7. per the eyewitness, officer wilson reached out, grabbed mr. brown, and dragged him halfway into the vehicle (not standard police procedure). A tussle ensued. per the eyewitness, mr. brown was attempting to extricate himeself from officer wilson's car, and officer wilson was attempting to keep him in there. why all this happened is still unknown.

    8. officer wilson drew his police weapon because, according to him, mr. brown was trying to grab it out of its holster. the eyewitness claims otherwise, that brown was still trying to just get out of the vehicle.

    9. officer wilson discharged his weapone twice, hitting brown once in the hand, and missing the other time. this explains the blood and skin found inside the car, and the particulates found on mr. brown's hand.

    10. mr. brown finally broke free, and the two friends ran (attested to by other eyewitnesses).
    11. officer wilson got out of his car and started shooting at mr. brown's back, while he was running away. officer wilson hit mr. brown in the back 4 times. officer wilson did not radio in for backup, standard police procedure.

    12. at a distance of approx. 120 feet from officer wilson, mr. brown stopped running. he turned around and placed his hands up in the air, the pretty much universal sign of surrender. attested to by multiple eyewitnesses. officer wilson continued shooting, hitting mr. brown twice in the front.

    13. after being shot two times in the front of his body, mr. brown collapsed. attested to by multiple eyewitnesses. officer wilson had still not radioed in for backup.

    additionally (and this is opinion, based on the facts as given), the autopsy report as partially leaked, states that gunpowder residue was found on the hand of mr. brown, the one that had been shot. this is consistent with the hand being shot from close range, which everyone agrees with. that's all it confirms. to assert, from this, that it is dispositive with respect to the claim, by officer wilson, that mr. brown was reaching for officer wilson't gun, when his hand was shot, is a conclusion far beyond the scope of the physical evidence.

    i'm not going to provide multiple links, that have already been provided all over the net. any news site will have them. suffice it to say, i feel pretty confident that the facts i've stated are those provided by both local police officials, and interviews of eyewitnesses, who all seem to tell a similar story.

    why did officer wilson feel compelled to turn a routine, "hey, get out of the road, before you get run over!" into a deadly confrontation? beats me, it just sounds bizarre on its face. the fact remains, he was the one that started and ended it, by his own (limited) admissions. he never called for backup. he had no reason to suspect mr. brown of being involved in a robbery, because he never received a call to that affect, before or during the incident. his own boss admitted that. further, there is some question as to whether or not this claimed robbery even occurred; according to the store owner and his attorney, it didn't, and no one connected with the store called the police about it.

    clearly, this incident isn't necessarily cut & dried, but it aint looking good for officer wilson, no matter how much officialdom tries to protect him.


    Fact? So many misrepresentations of fact (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:20:31 PM EST
    in your comment I don't know where to start.

    OK, 3, 5, 7, 11 & 12 have blatant misrepresentations of fact in them, and several others have less egregious examples...


    #11 is particularly egregious (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:34:55 PM EST
    Yeah, I'd like to see the citation for that claim (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by leftwig on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    Facts? (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by leftwig on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:57:29 PM EST
    1,2,3,4 certainly are.

    1. taken from a public statement by Johnson (not under oath).  We don't know the accuracy of this statement, but Johnson has not said he or Brown had to move out of the middle of the street to avoid being hit by the SUV, so I think its speculation, not fact that Wilson backing up was not SOP.

    2. Again taken from Johnsons public, statement.  Wilsons account differs.  Not a fact, but a disputed claim.

    I don't really need to go much furhter because most of the "facts" you presented are meerely public statements made by a witness, a witness with previous run ins with the law, including providing false information to police.  We don't know that any of his statements in the media match anything he's told to investigators or the GJ.  Why would you assume Johnsons public statements are facts and Wilsons leaked GJ statements are not?  Their statements obviously would be evidence, but at this point, we don't even know what their statements under oath are, so its not accurate to equate any of the statements to fact.

    About the only facts we currently know are that Wilson confronted the 2, there was some sort of struggle at and/or in the SUV, shots were fired inside the SUV, Brown was hit, Johnson and Brown fled, Wilson followed, Brown was shot dead by Wilson some 120 feet away from the SUV.  There are some public statements made by witnesses about what they saw, but again, we can't really call these facts.  There is also the autopsy report which is filled with many facts that can be applied to the series of events that occurred (ie, all shots that hit Brown came from Brown facing Wilson), but as of yet, there is still an incomplete picture.  

    I don't see how any conclusions can be drawn based on what is factually known at this point.


    I'm going (none / 0) (#85)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:59:55 PM EST
     to leave the dissection of your asserted facts to others.

      I will not the difference between you making assertions of fact which may or not be true and cpinva just stating his personal opinions about things and calling his opinions facts.

      Briefly, someone who saw the event would be permitted to testify:

     I saw the officer shoot Brown from X feet away and Brown was not approaching him at the time.

      That same witness would not be allowed to testify the incompetent officer shot Brown for no good reason  and should be convicted.

      He might be justified in holding the opinions in the latter sentence but that doesn't make them facts.


    Talkleft posters should know (3.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 10:54:18 AM EST
    There have been 7 Legal Observers arrested in St Louis County since the Protests began over the police shooting of Michael Brown. Legal Observers from Missouri Organization for Reform and Empowerment (MORE) wear distinctive green hats and badges. Last night a Legal Observer was one of 5 arrested. He was arrested at the end of his shift walking to his car on an empty sidewalk some distance from the few remaining protestors. He was the last one released this morning.

    In these 76 days more than 404 Protestors have been arrested in the 76 days of protest. Some charged and given trial dates, some detained without charges. Most detained overnight, others for 2 days. Some arrestees were not provided medical attention.  
    St Louis County law enforcement agencies are blowing their budgets on "policing" peaceful demonstrations. Officers are  pointing rifles at point blank range within 10 feet of people.

    Organizers are asking concerned citizens to call Missouri Governor Jay Nixon to demand a Special Prosecutor take over the case.  

    More (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 11:26:42 AM EST
    article gets only PD "info" (none / 0) (#29)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:17:51 PM EST
    Tweets of protestors acknowledge some new protestors in the back threw some water bottles: they were quickly IDed by protestors and asked to leave. Some anarchist threw a  stick, that small group  were also noticed and keep under close guard by protestors. (Police overkill like this is a magnaet to out Anarcists.) No one noticed or livestreamed or photographed an iron rod or rocks being thrown or landing. (Might be cloaked in invisibility like Chief Dotson said. There were more than 50 cops, St. Louis County uniforms and many in Ferguson uniform.

    As quoted in the Stltoday article, St. Louis County Police Sgt. Brian Schellman is incorrect, traffic was flowing on the street in front of the FPD. Protestors want cars to drive by. In fact, the almost universal honks of solidarity while heartening to Protestors are probably more than irritating to the cops. Temporary waist high metal fencing (placed earlier in the day) girding off some of the PD parking lot was knocked down early in the evening no protestor stepped over it.

    Police were more orderly than many previous days. It is clear they have been practicing: how to walk in single file,  efficiently hold pepper (or mace) spray bottles, stand for long periods of time weighted down with riot apparatus, and point guns at people without responding in personal rage.

    However many officers are still not wearing ID badges and  body cams. Apparently some officers do not want to be responsible for their actions.


    With this story (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:21:37 PM EST
    I take both sides version of events like this with a grain of salt.

    Facts (none / 0) (#55)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:46:12 PM EST
    Fact: Police are not wearing identification.

    Fact:  Police arrested identifiable legal observer, a Missouri citizen as he walked alone toward his car on an empty sidewalk.

    How do you take salt with facts?  Should I go on?

     Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
     Aldous Huxley


    Most of your post (3.50 / 2) (#60)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:55:54 PM EST
    is based on what protestors said they saw.  So, as with the police who have an agenda, so do these protestors, which is why you should take all with a grain of salt.

    Fact: Police are not wearing identification.

    Fact:  Police arrested identifiable legal observer, a Missouri citizen as he walked alone toward his car on an empty sidewalk

    Proof would be nice. You may be right.  You may also be wrong.  Since you don't provide verifiable and trustworthy links, we will never know.


    But you don't ever seem to hold (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 03:47:26 PM EST
    the police to the same proof requirements as those you think private citizens must be held to.

    The cops are the ones with regulations requiring that they wear ID tags with their names; do you think they should have to prove they were wearing ID or that the burden is on the private citizen to prove they weren't?

    Suppose there was an oath involved - would that change your perception that what someone says they saw was the truth?  This kind of thing happens all the time, you know - one person testifies they saw something, one person says they didn't - both are under oath, so who to believe?  

    At some point, and absent any visual, recorded proof, one ends up having to draw a conclusion taking the totality of what has been presented with into consideration.

    What will you say when you see the proof you've been demanding?  


    BTW VonDerrick Myers killed in St Louis 9/8 (2.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Palli on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 01:46:29 AM EST
    His parents have had a second autopsy too. Dr. Cyrill H, Wecht
    findings here:

    Also contrary to the story of the St Louis police officer in some key respects.

     Wilson is 31;
     this unidentified cop is 32.


    good enough for you? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:34:39 PM EST
    Contemporaneous photographic evidence.

    TWEET Mike Wazowski @Uh_Blip  ·  10h 10 hours ago
    I was charged with obstructing flow of traffic and peace disturbance


    https://twitter.com/AaronWBanks (none / 0) (#76)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:36:32 PM EST
    A tweet? (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    a photo on a tweet, not yet published (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 03:27:45 PM EST
    Is a tweet w/cell phone photo any less credible than Edward R. Murrow reporting from Germany in 1945

    Read the byline stories and on the ground reporting tweets from Trymaine Lee, a Pulitzer Prize Reporter. Are only the facts in the published article credible and those same facts in a tweet not?


    Really?? (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 06:06:03 PM EST
    Is a tweet w/cell phone photo any less credible than Edward R. Murrow reporting from Germany in 1945

    In case you missed it I think you are trying to say "from London" and he became famous for that.


    Oh yeah. London actually was being bombed and WWII was slightly larger than a bunch of people in Ferguson being unwilling to accept the same application of justice the rest of us have to.

    So no. It isn't credible.


    RE: traffic flow and Officers w/o ID (none / 0) (#91)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 03:21:10 PM EST
    See: any livestreaming video footage from 10/22 by Bassem Masri or Bella Eiko


    why don't my links work? (none / 0) (#109)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 04:25:49 PM EST


    I refer you to (none / 0) (#112)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 04:39:27 PM EST
    No it is based in visual-photographic evidence (none / 0) (#119)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 05:49:24 PM EST
    whether you "look" or not.

    Photos of cops without can been seen throughout the photo record of FergusonOctober.org #Ferguson twitter account online records, and protestors accounts.  The photo of Michael Wazowski's arrest last night is also and he writes about it on his page    


    jb (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by sj on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:10:38 PM EST
    conflates facts with evidence. Nothing happened unless there is an artifact that demonstrates it happened.

    sj (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:13:17 PM EST
    needs a dictionary.  Evidence is MADE UP of facts.

    Evidence:  the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

    But not surprised by the nasty and uninformed comment.


    You choose what is a fact (4.00 / 4) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 10:12:20 PM EST
    And what is not.

    According to the jb definition, anything a police officer says is fact regardless how many other witnesses disputes the statement. Anything that witnesses say that does not agree with the police is speculation.

    Also any statement made by jb is a fact no matter how lacking in evidence. Anything said that disagrees with jb's opinion, oh sorry fact, is speculative.


    I wish I could give you (2.00 / 1) (#163)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 09:08:43 AM EST
    negative ratings for this comment, as it is so trollish, it's unbelievable.

    It's very interesting of what you accuse me of when you yourself do exactly the same thing - if it's a police officer that is involved, why they MUST be out of control, suspect, lying, and thugs. Don't worry about information that may come out that contradict that world view - it must be made up. So I guess you are also choosing what is fact, and if it does not agree with your definition, then it is to be instantly dismissed.  Hi pot, meet kettle.

    I have said repeatedly that I think Wilson should be indicted - let him stand trial and have the public see what evidence exists and let the chips fall where they may - because I don't really know what happened that day (nor does anyone else here on this blog). At least I admit I don't know what happened - but that certainly hasn't stopped you or other people from trying to pass off what they think they know as fact. And of course, as we saw with the Trayvon Martin incident, even when facts are presented that conflict with the reality people want, instead of the reality that is, some people will still put their blinders on, so a trial isn't going to appease them anyway.

    This isn't an either-or proposition.  Why can't it be that some police have acted badly in this case, but some protestors have acted badly too?  Why is that so unbelievable?  You all have big brains around here - why can't you use them?

    You may absolutely be right that McCullough is not presenting a great case just so Wilson can get off.  I don't see any upside to that strategy, and no one here yet has presented a good one, so that seems like it would be completely asinine of him to do so, and would be political suicide.  I dunno - he seems to like his job, why would he do something that would jeopardize that, and have calls for his resignation and possible ethics investigations brought upon him? Or worse?

    I guess some cases just bring out the worst in people that they lose all ability to try and be rational and look at ALL the moving pieces - not just the ones they like.  But I'll let you stew about this and try to call me out (but fail again). I really don't care anymore - indict Wilson, don't indict him.  Whatever. At this point, it doesn't really matter.


    You wish you could give me a trollish rating (none / 0) (#167)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 09:41:16 AM EST
    Unbelievable. Yes, some cases do bring out the worst in people and they do lose their ability to even recognize let alone write the truth in their comments. Turn that mirror around and look at yourself. You will see a prime example.

    You wish you could give me a trollish rating?

    Get real. You did give me a troll rating.

    You choose what is a fact (3.00 / 2) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 09:12:20 PM CST
    And what is not.

    According to the jb definition, anything a police officer says is fact regardless how many other witnesses disputes the statement. Anything that witnesses say that does not agree with the police is speculation.

    Also any statement made by jb is a fact no matter how lacking in evidence. Anything said that disagrees with jb's opinion, oh sorry fact, is speculative.

    Parent | Reply to This
    Others have rated this comment as follows:
    Angel     5
    jbindc     1

    How is that for fact over your trumped up fiction.


    Sigh (none / 0) (#168)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 09:59:41 AM EST
    This is so boring and tiring.

    Move on.


    You made the choice to write (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:25:33 AM EST
    complete and utter BS and dislike getting called on your BS. It is no wonder you want to move on.

    If you don't want to be called on your misstatement of facts (otherwise known as lies), then I suggest you quit making untrue statements (otherwise known as lying). Really not a smart thing to write something untrue about something so trivial just because you have worked yourself up into a lather on this subject. It is especially unwise when the proof that you are making an erroneous statement is so readily available.  


    My point exactly (none / 0) (#70)
    by sj on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:28:17 PM EST
    Evidence is MADE UP of facts.
    But not all facts are evidence.

    You continually conflate the two. And, for the record, my "nasty and uninformed comment" didn't require me invent quotes or misrepresent anything you have said. Which is what you have been doing to others up and down this thread.


    Oh (none / 0) (#73)
    by sj on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:32:00 PM EST
    And I gave you the dictionary you required.

    No (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:35:24 PM EST
    But speculation is not evidence, nor a fact. Which has what has been rampant here.  Making stuff up and calling it facts.

    Thanks for your usual nonsense.


    It is a fact (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by sj on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:51:18 PM EST
    that I stubbed my toe yesterday. There is no evidence to support this. Does that mean it is no longer a fact?

    there is "evidence" (none / 0) (#90)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 03:20:02 PM EST
     Your testimony that you stubbed your toe is probative evidence tending to prove you did.

     There obviously could be other evidence to an event. It could be supportive other witnesses to the event, injury consistent with stubbing a toe, testimony you were not limping immediately prior to the time you say you stubbed your toe but were immediately after and on and on.)

      There could also be evidence tending to rebut your evidence.  (witnesses testifying they were present and did not see you stub your toe; that they saw you hurt your toe by drunkenly dropping a heavy object on it; and on and on.

      All of that is evidence. It is the province  jury or other fact-finder to evaluate all of the  evidence, weigh it with eyes toward credibility of the proponents (which includes many considerations), corroboration,  consistency and so forth.

      Even opinions can be evidence and not just opinions from experts. Lay opinion testimony can be received as evidence in certain circumscribed situations:

      If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is:
    RUle 701 F.R.Evid.
    (a) rationally based on the witness's perception;

    (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness's testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and

    (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702

      The real confusion here is between evidence and truth. Competing and often contradictory assertions of fact are the norm, because quite often if they did not exist the matter would not be in court. Cases where the facts are not in dispute but only the application of the law to those facts do exist, but they are not the norm and this case obviously is not one of them.


    testimony (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by sj on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 04:11:20 PM EST
    Your testimony that you stubbed your toe is probative evidence tending to prove you did.
    I didn't even mention it until my comment so that is the first "testimony" that was given. Does that mean it wasn't a fact until I mentioned it?

    1. There were no witnesses (other than my dog who will be unable to testify).
    2. There is no bruise or abrasion on my toe.
    3. There is no nail polish to damage

    This is a toe stubbing that really happened, btw, and not a made up event. There will be no judge or jury to hear one way or the other. If I tell someone about it, should I be doubted on principle because there is no "evidence"? What kind of idiot way is that to live life? Most [by far] "facts" will never be validated by evidence. Do they then cease to exist? Are they only potential facts?

    What makes it a fact? jb consistently uses "facts not evidence" to (in her eyes) "debunk" analysis and conclusions, as if all the world is a courtroom.

    It is tiresome.


    i thought that was imple enough, but (none / 0) (#113)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 04:41:31 PM EST
      You alone testifying to your observation of an event is "evidence." It's still evidence if no one else saw it, knows anything about and there is no corroborating "evidence" of any type.

      It would be up to the jury or other  fact-finder to use that "evidence" to reach a verdict. Even if that is the only "evidence" and your version of the event was 100% uncontroverted, a jury could  (and in your case I suspect might) find the "proof" insufficient. It would be considering your testimony as evidence but it might give little or no weight.

      The jury could rule against you despite the fact you offered the only "evidence" of what happened   because it finds: you are untruthful and they just plain  don't believe you; they might have doubts sufficient  to find you failed to meet your burden of proof because you are self-interested and biased; or that you are incapable of accurately observing and recalling events.....

      By the same token the jury could rule in your favor despite the fact your self-interested testimony is the only "evidence" supporting your case because they do find you credible and think your testimony standing alone is sufficient "proof."



    That's the problem right there (none / 0) (#116)
    by sj on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 05:06:15 PM EST
    It would be up to the jury or other  fact-finder to use that "evidence" to reach a verdict.
    My fact will never see the light of day in the courtroom. Many witnesses who have spoken out will also likely never see a courtroom. In essence you seem to be saying that a fact becomes a fact when it becomes evidence. (A process you outlined quite clearly and I thank you for that, even though it is completely irrelevant to my stubbed toe. Which apparently is not a fact, by those standards.)

    But you seem to be living in the same world as jb where the only thing that is real is evidence legally rendered.

    So forget the jury, forget the courtroom. Get that out of  your mind completely, I beg of you.

    Real life continues to happen without them. This may be a legal blog, but there is lots of discussion by commenters who are not in any way officers of the court. If you or jb or you want to limit yourselves to only facts with "evidence" behind them, then have it at. Seriously, that's fine. Just know that most people don't live in that tiny little sandbox.

    So stop pretending that your opinion is more valid than anyone else's opinion because, in your folly, you believe evidence trumps life experience and synthesis derived from analysis. And for the love of God, stop scolding others for playing on the swings instead of your [stupid little] sandbox.

    Not saying that you specifically do that.

    But if you keep coming back to a legal definition of something or other you will have missed the point yet again and there would be no reason for me to respond, yet again.


    About those witnesses... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by unitron on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 10:41:37 PM EST
    "Many witnesses who have spoken out will also likely never see a courtroom."

    Why not?

    Because there won't be a trial?

    In that case all of the witnesses, regardless of what they have to say, won't see a courtroom, at least in connection with a trial of Wilson.

    Do you believe those witnesses to whom you refer will not be called to testify before the grand jury?

    Do you think that if the grand jury wraps up without them that they won't go to the press and complain of being ignored, and that the powers that be are going to be just fine with the public reaction to that?

    Remember, we out here in the public have not heard any of the witnesses (including Wilson, Johnson, the performer of the initial autopsy, and all the rest) cross-examined.

    There have allegedly been leaks about some of what has allegedly been presented to the grand jury.

    But as far as I know there have not yet been any credible reports about what the members of the grand jury think about any of this.

    If you were on a grand jury would you sit there passively and let the prosecutor present only what they wanted to and never ask a question?

    Maybe there are some on that grand jury who wouldn't either.


    We are not (2.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 05:18:49 PM EST
    discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or whether a falling tree makes a sound....

      The reason we are discussing the issue is because there is a dispute about what really happened. It's not some  airy-fairy pseudo-philosophical question. In this real world disputes over whether or not a crime was committed are settled in court.

      Define "evidence" any way that floats your boat, but if you diverge from the definition that matters when we are discussing about how a legal dispute should be settled then you are simply being irrelevant. That may just be my opinion, but I challenge you to state how your digressions are relevant to anything of even slight significance in or out of court.


    That might be why (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by sj on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 05:49:53 PM EST
    YOU are discussing it. But it's not why Anne or I are discussing it. I don't want to discuss EVIDENCE at all. That's your thing. And I wish you would stop dragging everything into that.

    Like Number 5, I need input. I'll take none of it as gospel but will use it to generate... analysis! And form an opinion! NOT issuing a verdict here!

    Now the obsession with "evidence" is no longer tiresome, it is beyond tiresome. Apparently you DO have the same blind spot that jb has.

    And I won't shout anymore. Just don't respond if you don't get it. I will state it one more time.

    Evidence may be fact based, but not all facts need to be evidence in order to exist.


    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 10:27:37 AM EST
      facts that are not relevant are not evidence. That's kind of why I mentioned above you are choosing to consign yourself to irrelevancy. I will concede that is my opinion and there is a segment of posters who don't seem to distinguish much between things that make sense and matter and things that don't.

     Lord knows you Anne and others have all sorts of opinions on all sorts of things. Expressing those opinions here is acceptable. Others dismissing or criticizing the opinions as based on either incorrect assertions of fact, irrelevant facts, poor logic, emotionally derived opinions divorced from reason, etc. should be equally acceptable.


    You know (none / 0) (#184)
    by sj on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:36:41 AM EST
    I did ask you not to reply if you didn't get my point. Since you won't go away, I will.

    That's what I get for trying to take you seriously.


    Nice to hear (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 09:02:05 PM EST
    you on this

    Crump (none / 0) (#4)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 10:35:17 PM EST
    Crump: "What we want to know is why Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown multiple times and killed him even though he was more than 20 feet away from his patrol car; this is the crux of the matter!"

    The first thing Ben needs to do is bone up on the facts of this case.

    Michael Brown wasn't shot "more than 20 feet away from the patrol car" but more than 120 feet away from the patrol car. That's a long way to chase someone that you are afraid.

    And in St Louis the local media is still concealing the fact that the shooting took place a mere 74 seconds after their first encounter and the fact that Wilson is 6'6" versus Brown's 6'4".


    Wilson is 6'6" versus Brown's 6'4" (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 22, 2014 at 11:53:28 PM EST
    According to the autopsy that you linked to in your previous comment, Brown is 77" tall, ie, 6'5", and 289 lbs.

    This is, literally, in black and white, on the official county autopsy. That you linked to.

    So I would expect that you will not ever again use any other height and weight to describe Brown.


    Also, could you please give us your link to support your contention that Wilson is 6'6"?

    Lastly, iirc, you use the word "huge" when describing Wilson, would you please give us your link to how much he weighs?

    Both of these would be really helpful.


    You are fighting an endless, useless battle. (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:04:49 AM EST
    This commenter's opinion is chipped in stone.

    True enough. In reality I have no interest (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 11:12:01 AM EST
    or issues with his opinions, it's his constant and incessant, and, imo, willful, misrepresentation of fact that I feel compelled to point out.

    Just so anyone reading who's not as up to date on the facts are not misled by him.


    6'4" (none / 0) (#9)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 05:02:00 AM EST
    Brown was clearly then bigger in death than he was in life.

    It must have been all that time spent sprawled out on the asphalt in the street that added to his stature in death.

    His 6'4" height as cited by everybody across the fruited plain and beyond is etched not in stone but on that Missouri Drivers License in his wallet.

    For Wilson's height check the videos and pictures of him on the internet standing over Brown in the street and towering over Chief Jackson.

    Perhaps you could post them for us.



    "cited by everybody across the fruited plain and beyond" before they all found out yesterday from his autopsy that he was actually 6'5", but now we all (including you) know he's actually 6'5".

    Oh yeah, according the the NYT, the Washington Post, and our host, Jeralyn, another one of your statements is, shockingly, proved to be false:

    Brown did not have a drivers license.

    And therefore there is no height listed there (not that a self-reported height on a DL would be taken as fact over an actual physical measurement by a, you know, medical doctor).

    And, lastly, your height doesn't change when you die, 'cuz your height is due to, you know, your actual bones. If anything the tissues in the joints between the bones might shrink a tiny bit due to loss of fluids.

    Anyway, now that it is settled that Brown was 6'5" and 289 lbs, you have made numerous claims here on TL that Wilson is taller and heavier than Brown.

    Would you please link us to your source(s) that would support your contentions?


    Height (none / 0) (#11)
    by markw on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 06:43:05 AM EST
    Since Brown was a teenager, one simple explanation is that he was still growing, and had grown an inch since the date of his drivers' license.

    It is also true (none / 0) (#22)
    by sj on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 11:46:15 AM EST
    that one is taller in the morning because the spine decompresses when laying down. Since I'm pretty sure that the autopsy wasn't conducted with Brown in a standing position, I think that 1 inch variance is literally irrelevant.

    Vanity dictates that I list my height as my morning height even though I know it changes.


    Best to stay off trampolines and horses too sj. :) (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by fishcamp on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 03:05:36 PM EST
    My Impression Is (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by RickyJim on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 08:52:24 AM EST
    that Officer Wilson got out of his car to try to arrest somebody who had just assaulted him.  He had already called for backup.  I certainly am not sure of the details of what happened after that, but Brown being shot 120 feet from the patrol car is not, in itself, enough to indict Wilson for murder.

    Regarding Ben Crump: (none / 0) (#8)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 12:27:00 AM EST
    "The first thing Ben needs to do is bone up on the facts of this case."

    Attorney, Ben Crump was, factually, correct. As would somebody who said it was 30 feet, or 40, or 50, all the way up to 120.

    Think about it.

    And, as to your second accusation:

    There are, literally, thousands of "facts" surrounding a case such as this one. The media would, naturally, try to inform the public about  those which the public wouldn't come to know from, simply, following events in the days and weeks following the event. Since you have, somehow, come into possession of those two bits of information, I would surmise that the info is either, (A) irrelevant, or, (B) has been reported on in the normal course of reporting. I don't know how you would know that none of the local media had reported on those matters.  

    So then which statement (none / 0) (#10)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 05:15:07 AM EST
    is more evidentiarily accurate: that he was 20 feet behind the car when shot??? or that he was 120 feet behind the car when shot???

    If you can't see the importance of that difference then I can't help you.

    If the accuracy of an attorney's statements and evidence is irrelevant then he needs to give it up because he will never win in court.

    Afterall it was the incontrovertibility of the evidence that did Crump in in Sanford -- nothing else.


    The fact that Wilson was frightened (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 11:22:58 AM EST
    yet still tried to arrest Brown is called "doing your duty."

    Police, firemen, military members and other first responders do it all the time.


    Duty to arrest him (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CST on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:32:37 PM EST
    for what crime exactly?

    Assault on a police officer. Strong arm (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:28:20 PM EST
    robbery n

    Do we know that this is the case? (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:59:15 PM EST
    I realize the robbery is in evidence now, but I thought it was determined that Wilson didn't know about it at the time.  That being said, I haven't been following this very closely.

    Is there any evidence that he assaulted the police officer?

    To be honest, my comment to Jim was mostly snark,  as I don't really see how Wilson was attempting to arrest Brown in any case.


    If the dispatch logs, transcripts, and tapes (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 04:15:56 PM EST
    have been released, I am unaware of it.

    This has not been determined beyond any (none / 0) (#93)
    by leftwig on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 03:25:07 PM EST
    doubt.  Wilson has stated (through unnamed sources and Josie) that he called for backup before backing up his SUV to confront Johnson and Brown.  Chip put up a timeline some time ago and I am not sure how official it was, but I recall that there were several calls made around this time.  Also, you have police arriving on scene seconds after the shooting.  It seems most logical that they arrived so quickly because they were on route prior to the shooting.

    It's been a common tactic (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by sj on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:31:31 PM EST
    of police for years -- even before they were militarized. Instigate a confrontation with a civilian then arrest them for resisting arrest.

    I know several people who have been arrested for resisting arrest.


    Then I understand your bias towards (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 05:59:14 PM EST
    the police.

    I, OTOH, have had none arrested and tend to give some credence to what they say.

    My position is that I don't think Wilson would have been concerned about the two men strolling along unless he had received information about the minimarket strong arm robbery.

    OTOH Wilson may have called them over to the SUV to tell them to quit walking in the middle of the street and while he was talking to them he, and them, heard the robbery information come through his radio and he tried to arrest them and things went bad from that point.

    Either way Brown robbed a store, assaulted someone in the store (shown on video)and a few minutes later assaulted a police officer.


    Are you talking to me? (none / 0) (#185)
    by sj on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:41:38 AM EST
    Or just looking for a place to hang another irrelevant diatribe?

    Read these articles about St Louis LE & courts (none / 0) (#188)
    by Palli on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:57:33 AM EST
    I am going to fix your links (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:17:08 PM EST
    they will be deleted since they mess up the thread.

    I am fixing Pail's links (none / 0) (#191)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:16:33 PM EST
    so that they are not deleted.

    Link 1

    Link 2

    Link 3 There are statistics that suggest that blacks are being racially profiled in Ferguson.

    But more to the point, based on the video it would be safe to say that Brown robbed the store. There is no automatic death penalty on the books for strong arm robbery.

    You are stating that Brown assaulted Wilson as though it is a fact. That is not a proven fact. That is your opinion.

    Oh, please, please reference Melinek's analysis as proof positive that Brown reached for Wilson's gun.


    #6,7] Slightly upward ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 01:34:13 PM EST
    From the Brown Autopsy leaked yesterday there is this:

    7 bullets hit Brown -- not just 6 -- per the StL County ME. Here are the bullets and their trajectories per the report:

    #1] Top of head  -- downward.

    #2,3,4] Forehead -- in out in backward and downward.

    #5] Lateral right chest -- the path of this shot is backward and downward.

    #6,7] Upper right arm -- the path of this shot is slightly upward backward and leftward.

    #8,9] Right forearm -- the path of this shot is slightly upward foreward and leftward.

    #10] Right bicep grazing wound -- no determinable direction.

    #11] Right thumb grazing wound -- path of the track is from tip of the thumb toward the wrist.

    Is #6,7 the bullet that hit Brown at the SUV window as it travelled slightly upward???


    Baden seemed to agree that (none / 0) (#66)
    by leftwig on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:12:40 PM EST
    the thumb wound was the close contact shot occurring at/in the SUV given the GSR found in the wound (not on the surface).

    months he said that he found no GSR/stipple/etc. on the body.

    Did he make a recent comment to the contrary?


    There is an interview online that (none / 0) (#95)
    by leftwig on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 03:29:09 PM EST
    he did on Fox.  He  agreed with the conclusions on the thumb would being a close range shot.  I believe he said it was acutally the Feds that found the GSR in the thumb wound.  Baden interview yesterday.

    Excellent, thank you. (none / 0) (#98)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 03:40:24 PM EST
    That's not what I heard him say (none / 0) (#78)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 02:39:14 PM EST
    at his press conference.

    He said that there was no GSR found on the body anywhere [and btw wounds are part of that body]

    And his conclusion was that all bullets were fired at a  distance of 2 feet or further.


    sorry for fox but (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 03:32:26 PM EST
    the first hit on googling baden autopsy report

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2014/10/23/dr-baden-vs-official-michael-brown-autopsy-re port

    GUILFOYLE: Hi. Great to have you here tonight.

    BADEN: Yeah. I think the new report that's been release from the first autopsy is -- I agree with much of what it said in there. There is evidence of a wound being inflicted while his hand was in the car at least because he does have a gunshot graze wound in the hand, the right hand.

    GUILFOYLE: The decedent, Michael Brown?

    BADEN: The decedent, yes. And his blood was found by the FBI in the car. So, that, I think, is agreed upon. There is some gunshot residue in the hand, only seen under the microscope. It wasn't seen the first autopsy on the skin surface but under the skin.

    GUILFOYLE: Again, on Michael Brown. So that's GSR, gunshot residue, which would suggest that he was in close proximity with the weapon, right, of the officer?

    BADEN: Right, yes. So, and that gun shot wound of the car would fit that description.

    GUILFOYLE: Would be consistent with that.


    Recon, you comment will likely be deleted (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 03:43:25 PM EST
    due to not formatting your links as they are supposed to be.


    To link, with apologies if it's too basic:

    -highlight the URL of the web-page that you want to link to.

    -copy the URL ("edit" then "copy").

    -come back to TL and write something in your "Comment:" box.

    -highlight the word(s) in that comment that you want to be the link.

    -click the "URL" button above the "Comment:" box, it's the button that has
    an icon that looks like links of a chain. That brings up a link box, and your cursor is automatically in it.

    -hold down the "Ctrl" button on your computer's keyboard and then type "v". That copies the url into the link box.

    -click "OK."

    -click the "Preview" button below the "Comments:" box.

    -if the preview looks good - ie., the word(s) you selected to be the link
    are a different color from the rest of the text - click the "Post" button below the "Comments:" box.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#103)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 04:10:14 PM EST
      I will try to get with the program. I don't mind being deleted for messing up the formatting or slowing down the site. I did take umbrage at being deleted for  challenging certain parties.

    same link-- testing (none / 0) (#105)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 04:12:23 PM EST
    times 2 (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 04:16:05 PM EST
    By George... (none / 0) (#148)
    by unitron on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 11:06:47 PM EST
    ...I think he's finally got it.

    : - )


    So Dr Baden: (none / 0) (#102)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 04:05:53 PM EST
    If you grab a shirt with GSR on it with a hand that has been freshly wounded, can you transfer GSR from the shirt to the wound???

    So Dr. Baden: (none / 0) (#111)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 04:37:56 PM EST
    You said the GSR was only able to be seen by  microscope and was "under the skin." Can GSR get driven under the skin like that by simply grabbing a shirt?

    Also, Dr. Baden, there is no report of GSR on Brown's shirt, so why are we discussing it?


    So Dr Baden: (none / 0) (#115)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 05:03:53 PM EST
    If the microscopic GSR in the wound on the hand could only be there by a close proximity gunshot, does that mean that that close proximity gunshot had to have taken place within a vehicle????

    So Dr. Baden: (none / 0) (#118)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 05:30:44 PM EST
    When you said in your interview that "there is evidence of a wound being inflicted while in the car, while his hand was in the car," does that mean there is evidence that the wound took place while the hand was in the car?

    The good and bad (none / 0) (#124)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 06:27:35 PM EST
    Well there is good  and bad news --

    The good news is that if that wound to the hand did occur at the SUV, then it might just corroborate the tussle at the window, the gun going off grazing the hand with the bullet lodging in the building down the street.

    It might also mean that both shots at the car hit Brown -- one grazing his hand and one lodging in his arm.

    The bad news is that the St Louis County Medical Examiner's Office just gave a statement denying that they gave that autopsy report or anything else to the Post Dispatch.

    So a St Louis University law professor is now calling for a full investigation of everybody involved and starting the GJ process over.

    Can't wait to see this play out --


    It is still odd (none / 0) (#138)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 09:39:00 PM EST
    that Wilson (at least stated in the leak) himself drove the SUV patro car away from the scene to the PD. Blood was found on on the interior drivers door panel. Wilson must have been very careful not to disturb the evidence.

    Not to mention (none / 0) (#139)
    by Palli on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 09:42:06 PM EST
    the broken window and pieces of glass "everywhere"

    Interesting to know where you get this from (none / 0) (#145)
    by leftwig on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 10:42:26 PM EST
    because I am fairly certain I saw a photo/video of the SUV sitting on a flatbed at the scene (Wilsons SUV on flatbed). I understand Wilson said he drove himself to the police station.  No mention that it was in the SUV involved in the shooting.

    WaPo Wilson's Account from the "source" (none / 0) (#149)
    by Palli on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:11:06 AM EST
    As you say, Wilson is said to have told the GJ this narrative. It appeared in the Oct. 22 Washington post article in the section Wilson's Story others have referred to here...

    "Later, Wilson drove himself to the police station and was taken to the hospital by other officers. Wilson said he had bruises on the left and right sides of his face and scratches on his neck, the source said. He had no broken bones."

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/source-darren-wilson-says-michael-brown-kept-cha rging-at-him/article_d2cf8b20-c517-592b-96ba-77d8a5f46fef.html

    This caught my eye because I searched f after someone (maybe  you) corrected me weeks ago on another thread referring to the flatbed. I have inquired with Ferguson people. No one says any larger vehicle picked up the Wilson's SUV.  In fact, some people worried that the SUV that doubled for an ambulance was Wilson's but that certainly has never been proven true. There are quite a few SUV patrol cars in the FPD.

    Maybe Wilson driving off may be proven wrong if any real accounting ever surfaces. Frankly, this has all been so poorly conducted that this odd detail surprises even less now than the thought did weeks ago. The FPD has not been following their own officers manual.

    The "source's" account introduces so many peculiar elements.  I would hope an investigation will clear  up with "facts" but ... As Patricia Bynes tweets: "The reason u haven't seen at a national level a  major case with this many leaks before is bc this is St. Louis".

    BTW Have you read the Radley Balko's WaPo series on the St. Louis County judicial systems?  NYC Defense atty. and Documentary filmmaker Dacis Menschel visited this month and said: "This isn't so much a court; it's a collection agency with the imprimatur of law."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/03/how-st-louis-county-missouri-profits-from -poverty/


    All I can say is the link I provided (none / 0) (#158)
    by leftwig on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 08:29:14 AM EST
    shows a photo of a police SUV on the back of a flat bed truck at the shooting scene (photo was captured from a CNN video).  I can't imagine that is any other officers SUV other than Wilsons.

    Accepted from CNN we stand corrected (none / 0) (#179)
    by Palli on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 11:24:53 AM EST
    If Wilson was allowed to (none / 0) (#159)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 08:34:15 AM EST
    leave the crime scene before the StLouis County forensic team arrived and bagged his clothes, took his statement, and took scrapings from his hands and face where they supposedly came in contact with Brown, along with photos of supposed injuries, then that borders on criminality and evidence tampering on the part of Wilson, his chief and the Ferguson PD.

    Unless he had life threatening injuries he should never have been allowed to leave the scene or go to the hospital until his face and hands and clothes were processed for evidence. If he left the scene then the chain of evidence re any contact with Brown was broken.

    That being said I do recall a photo on the internet of Wilson's SUV taped shut and being carted away on the back of a trailer.

    And all this stuff being leaked through the media is now being questioned for veracity because if any of it is true then the County Prosecutor's office is required by law to find the leaker, investigate and prosecute -- but he isn't doing anything. He's just allowing these leaks to happen  claiming that he can't do anything about it.


    Where did you read that he drove HIS (none / 0) (#162)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 09:08:30 AM EST
    SUV away from the scene?
    Wilson (at least stated in the leak) himself drove the SUV patro car away from the scene to the PD

    Isnt' interesting that Dr. Baden (none / 0) (#132)
    by leftwig on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 08:14:38 PM EST
    is used as a trusted source when his statements are useful to your narrative, but if they are not, then his opinion requires scrutiny and questioning.

    Dr Baden is not (none / 0) (#161)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 08:55:56 AM EST
    the source of the report of the microscopic GSR magically appearing in the wound two months after 3 autopsies.

    He is merely commenting on what the finding means  if the report is true and all he says is that it puts the hand in close proximity to the gunshot -- nothing more.

    He does not say that it means that that puts Brown  inside the SUV or that there was a struggle for the gun or that his hand was in contact with the gun.

    It would just mean if true that the hand was within 2 feet of the gun when fired -- like at the window where Wilson had his grip on Brown's wrist trying to keep him from getting away as witnesses have testified while Wilson fired the gun from his lap.

    It might also mean that Brown was hit twice by two bullets fired at the SUV -- one grazing his hand and ending up in the window sill down the street and the other into his upper arm.

    Actually this finding could be worse for Wilson than if they had just left sleeping microscopic GSR lie.


    yes, You can tell we don't have a TV (none / 0) (#189)
    by Palli on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 12:03:55 PM EST
    or would tune to CNN

    Roorda -- (none / 0) (#197)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    Here is what is going on in Missouri:

    Police Union Boss Jeff Roorda -- Democrat candidate for Senate

    Jeff Roorda -- Democrat candidate for Missouri Senate and Police Union Boss and Darren Wilson's biggest supporter.


    That was his inital conclusion months ago (none / 0) (#96)
    by leftwig on Thu Oct 23, 2014 at 03:30:30 PM EST
    See link above or search internet for interviews he gave yesterday.

    Thank you, I knew that weeks ago but forgot (none / 0) (#201)
    by Palli on Fri Oct 24, 2014 at 03:08:36 PM EST
    Thanks! MOblue  Somehow even with the directions links don't work from my laptop, so just type them in and it turns up in blue ink when it is posted.  
    Thanks, Uncle Chip, Roorda is a big bossy problem for Missouri's advancement beyond a Jim Crow culture.

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#205)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 10, 2015 at 05:09:26 PM EST