It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DOJ Authorizes 2nd Autopsy Of Michael Brown At Family's Request

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
i suspect that the autopsy confirms the police side of the incident (I.E. no gunshots to the back, gunshot residue on the victims hands,etc) so the defense and the DOJ want a chance to try and fudge the results to make the not so innocent victim appear more innocent by doing their own autopsy.


I agree 100%




posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: netbound


How could an autopsy
shed any light on that?


Because, it was claimed that Michael was on he knees, hands in the air. The officers' testimony is different. He claims Michael was charging him.

Gunshot to the back as Michael was fleeing was claimed. If there is none, well, that part is obvious. He simply didn't shoot him in the back.

That casts doubt on all witness testimony making those claims.

If he was shot in the back, then it supports that witness testimony, and discounts the officer.

It has to do with credibility.

If Michael was stationary, and on his knees, at 35 feet, the bullet trajectory and lack of gunshot residue, as well as spreading of the bullet inside the body. All shots would be consistant.

If the testimony of the officer is to be believed, the gunshot evidence would match.

There is no residue at a certain distance, and after roughly 6-10 feet away, it is harder and harder to determine the distance of the shooter.

If there is inceasing change, growing residue, and powder spread, and the final, fatal wound to the forehead is at close range, again, there would be residue and spread. The main thing that would be obvious though, would be gunshot inconsistancy, as Michael grew closer and closer.


edit on 17-8-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: netbound

If the autopsy shows that he wasn`t shot in the back then we can dismiss all the testimony of all the witnesses including Dorian Johnson who said brown was shot in the back.

if there is gunshot residue on the victims hands than that is conclusive evidence that his hands were inside the vehicle and in close proximity to the gun when it discharged inside the vehicle.That could be seen as evidence confirming the officers story that brown tried to take his gun.
Again,Dorian Johnson`s testimony would be brought into question.

What we don`t know is where that first shot went.Did it strike brown? or did it go into the floor, dashboard, seat etc of the car.The destination of that first bullet will be strong evidence supporting one side or the other.
I`m sure the police know exactly where that bullet went but they aren`t telling us yet.

Johnson`s immunity is only valid so long as he tells the truth, if he is caught in a lie the immunity is over.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I absolutely agree, that it couldn't hurt, as long as they seriously don't get that Boa Ping guy, or whatever his name was!

I wouldn't mind digging up pics and video, but I am at work tonight, and just can't donate the kind of time needed for that. I have seen some very clear, very close up pics however, from both sides of his body.

If he had been shot in the back while running away, the wound would be obvious, and he would have a downward bloodflow pattern on the white shirt.

Once his body was prone, the blood would have flowed downward again, but it would have created a different blood pattern on the shirt.

From the photos, though, the greatest blood loss appeared to be from the head wound. The ground appears to be pretty level, and the blood flowed away from the top of his head to his upper left.

One could reasonably assume any back entry wound would have flowed in the same direction.

What really has me thinking, however, is there are no exit wounds.

This can be attributed to two possible factors. His weight, and/or the distance was indeed consistant, and Darion's story is the correct one.

It could be his weight, and for whatever reason, the officer didn't use hollow points, so that's a tough call.

Give me some time, and I will be happy to get back to you if you like. I can U2U you some links.

edit on 17-8-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

Actually, the two young ladies they interviewed stated the first gunshot went into the building across from where they lived.

They stated they lived in the building facing the passenger side, and considering the truck was parked perpendicular, it makes sense that it was in the building right out the drivers' side. It appears to be the closest to the truck, and then a grassy area, then another building.

She did say straight across, and claimed the truck was right outside her unit.

edit on 17-8-2014 by Libertygal because: window bug ate my window word!



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal




What really has me thinking, however, is there are no exit wounds.

This can be attributed to two possible factors. His weight, and/or the distance was indeed consistant, and Darion's story is the correct one.

It could be his weight, and for whatever reason, the officer didn't use hollow points, so that's a tough call.


If the officer hadn't used hollow point I would be much more likely to think there would be an exit wound. FMJ penetrates better.




posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal
I understand what you're saying, but to me it still proves little and doesn't justify the shooting. If the autopsy shows that there are gunshots entering the front of the body, and residue is present, how does it distinguish whether the officer was being charged or doing the charging? Gunshot wounds entering the back would certainly not be good for the officer.

What I'm getting at is, I still don't see how autopsy results can favor the shooter in this case. It seems to me that in all likelihood the results would either work against the officer or prove nothing either way.

I'm not a forensics expert, though, and I'm just showing my ignorance...



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: netbound

Ok. Nobody is trying to "justify" anything.

There are two stories.
1. The shooter stood next to the truck and didn't move. He fired a shot into Michaels' back as he ran away. Michael turned, at approximately 35 feet, put his hands in the air, and dropped to his knees.

2. The shooter exited the truck as Michael was running, and followed, yelling, "Freeze!" Michael turned around, and taunted the officer, "What you gonna do, shoot me?" (Don't recall the exact quote), then suddenly "bum rushed" the officer. The officer began firing, and Michael just kept charging, the final, deadly gunshot was to the forehead, and Michael's body dropped 3 feet from the officer.

So, you can honestly not see any difference in gunshot wounds, powder residue, bullet spread vs, distance, and exit wounds, and how it might change if someone were running at a stationary person, vs two stationary people?



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal
The story is the cops shot at him as he was running.

No entry from the back means we cannot verify either way.

The autopsy released says that he was shot through the top of the skull.
A second shot to the face hit his eye and traveled down to strike his collarbone.

edit: Additionally, look at the other entry wounds - inner arms / thumb, one chest shot.

That looks really, really bad for the shooter.

edit on 22Sun, 17 Aug 2014 22:59:11 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: mistaken one shot for other

edit on 23Sun, 17 Aug 2014 23:20:44 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: more content on autopsy



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Libertygal
Dorian also had a warrant out for his arrest on another, previos theft. He was released after being arrested, and a no show on court day.

I am thinking he got a nice deal, including immunity.

Do you have a legitimate source for the warrant?

He definitely wasn't being charged with the store theft. Ferguson Chief of Police:

"We have determined he [Johnson] committed no crime," Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Friday.

..unless you are speculating that the police chief himself is lying.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   
The New York times has published the preliminary autopsy report conducted by Dr. Baden. At the link show the diagram used to illustrate where bullets entered the body.

Brown was shot at least 6 times and no gun powder residue was present on his body indicating that the bullets were fired from a distance but the examiner didn't have access to Brown's clothes which may or may not have gun powder residue on them. Dr. Baden describes the fatal wound as having entered the top of the skull indicating the shot came while Browns head was tilted down. Two other bullets also struck Brown in the head.

From what I can see in the diagram, the rest of the bullets struck the inside of the right arm. To ME, that is strongly suggesting that Brown had his arms up.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: mwood

So basically you came into this thread to get a dig in against Eric Holder and go on some sanctimonious rant about how nobody should be concerned with anything that happens that doesn't directly affect them?

Damn you people on the Internet speculating about things! Damn you national news for... ermm.. existing!


I don't need to dig on Eric Holder, he digs his own holes.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   


Look at where the wounds are located, to me this is consistent with Brown having his arms raised when he was shot. Also no gun powder residue was found on the body.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: cripmeister

What evidence on that drawing gives you the ability to have a more conclusive opinion than Dr. Baden who has been a forensic pathologist for decades? If he says there is not enough evidence to positively state he either had his hands up or was charging why are you able to do so with such veracity?



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: cripmeister

What evidence on that drawing gives you the ability to have a more conclusive opinion than Dr. Baden who has been a forensic pathologist for decades? If he says there is not enough evidence to positively state he either had his hands up or was charging why are you able to do so with such veracity?

From the autopsy report and story:

“People have been asking: How many times was he shot? This information could have been released on Day 1,” Dr. Baden said in an interview after performing the autopsy.


Dr. Baden said that while Mr. Brown was shot at least six times, only three bullets were recovered from his body. But he has not yet seen the X-rays showing where the bullets were found, which would clarify the autopsy results.


“This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”

He does not mention the shot that struck his eye here, though. That should have been from roughly the same direction as the shot that pierced his skull:

One of the bullets shattered Mr. Brown’s right eye, traveled through his face, exited his jaw and re-entered his collarbone.


“In my capacity as the forensic examiner for the New York State Police, I would say, ‘You’re not supposed to shoot so many times,’ ” said Dr. Baden

He had just ran away from the police officer's vehicle after a shot was fired from inside the vehicle, according to multiple eye witnesses. He was found about 35 feet away from any vehicle, just looking at initial photos of the scene, like the one taken 1-2min after it happened. So, unless you think the police tampered with a crime scene and moved the vehicle, that happened.

A shot went off from within the car, Mr. Johnson said, and the two began to run away from the officer.

According to Ms. Mitchell, “The officer gets out of his vehicle,” she said, pursuing Mr. Brown, then continued to shoot.


“Within the police car there was a struggle over the officer’s weapon,” Chief Belmar said. “There was at least one shot fired in the car.” At that point, the police said, Officer Wilson left his vehicle and fatally shot Mr. Brown.

Altercation at the vehicle, Wilson got out of the vehicle and shot Brown. Brown's body is about 35 feet away from Wilson's vehicle.

So, after getting shot at, he ran away. Why would he turn around and charge an officer holding a gun from that distance when that same officer just shot at him which caused him to run away?

Additionally, remember how big Brown is:

Mr. Brown was a big man at 6-foot-4 and 292 pounds

For him to be charging Wilson, think about how far down he would have been stooped for those two shots to the head to hit as they did. If it wasn't being claimed of a dead man, it would be like some weird WWF action.

edit: I forgot one thing - he appears to have an upper chest entry wound, as well. Given that he is seen in photographs laying face down in the street, how did he get that chest wound by supposedly charging at the officer with his head down - so far down that he was shot twice from 'above' in the manner he was?
edit on 11Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:28:14 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   


In addition, Brown had marijuana in his system when he was shot and killed by a police officer on Aug. 9 in Ferguson, according to this person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.



County investigation: Michael Brown was shot from the front, had marijuana in his system



"anonymity"




posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

None of this counters what Dr. Baden, a decades-tenured pathologist, has stated. His expert opinion is that he cannot conclusively say one way or another. If you feel your professional opinion differs from his than maybe you should contact Mr. Krump and offer your services.



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
He's not making conclusions, he's just outlining the bare facts. But he's saying somethings between the lines - that it doesn't look good for the police, hence the critical remark about the number of shots:

“In my capacity as the forensic examiner for the New York State Police, I would say, ‘You’re not supposed to shoot so many times,’ ” said Dr. Baden


Let me ask you to do something:
Look at the autopsy sketch, with his palms facing away from his body.
Reenact this position yourself, and note where the wounds are.

Figure out how he got shot in the inner arms and the top of his head from both standpoints.
A) The police idea that he was killed charging at Wilson.
B) The witness idea that he was shot at from behind, turned and raised his hands, and was killed.
edit on 14Mon, 18 Aug 2014 14:18:29 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
But he's saying somethings between the lines...


No, he is not. I have been following Dr. Baden for years and he does not beat around the bush or deal in innuendo. He either states his opinion or says that he not able to conclusively determine as he did in this case. He was quite clear that he does not have enough forensic data to say with any certainty if Mr. Brown was shot charging the officer or surrendering. For you to postulate otherwise is dishonest and disingenuous.


Look at the autopsy sketch, with his palms facing away from his body.


Jesus H. Christ on his cross. The post mortem drawing is always shown with the palms that way.



edit on 18-8-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Aug, 18 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Jesus H. Christ on his cross. The post mortem drawing is always shown with the palms that way.


Uh, yeah? ...And? What is your point here?
The entry wounds noted on his arms are on the same side as his palms, thus the inner arm.

Figure out a scenario where Wilson managed those shots on a supposedly charging target.
edit on 14Mon, 18 Aug 2014 14:49:34 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join