Brown Autopsy Report Leaked by NYT

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

He is Mr. Johnson's legal representation and as such speaks for him in that regard, what Mr. Johnson says can be cited by a District Attorney in any criminal proceedings.

True, but I assume you don't think that his attorney speaking to the press and saying he admitted something amounts to the same as a police confession. Maybe you do.

Semantics. Mr. Johnson admitted to being present when the felony was committed, thereby dispelling any doubt that people have regarding that being Mr. Brown in the video and whether he was or not strong arm robbing that store.

You see, to you this is semantics. But to the courts, to people with an interest in fairness, this is simply called detail. Johnson did not say what you claimed he did. You invented it to make Brown look worse.

I do not have to paint Mr. Brown in a bad light, his felonious actions do that for him. I did not state that Mr. Johnson committed strong arm robbery, although a zealous prosecutor could have gotten away with lumping him into the crime, I stated that Mr. Johnson's attorney stated that Mr. Brown committed the crime. I apologize if I was not clear enough on this.

Apology accepted, but you did not say that. You wrote that Johnson had made an "admission that they robbed the store". The truth is somewhat different.

You asked why they would confiscate the tapes, I said because a call was made. How did they press find out the tape existed? They obviously got word a call was made since the police seemed to not be aware.

Possibly. But you clearly don't know, so why did you say you did with such certainty? It's this creation of factoids, the hardening of hearsay into accepted evidence that is so inimical to the pursuit of the truth.

Mr. Johnson's admission would be enough to convict Mr. Brown if he were still alive considering the compelling video evidence.

Possibly. Possibly not. But that's why we don't go around saying it's proved. Because it hasn't yet been. And the fact that you and others have fallen to creating spurious evidence to bolster the claim speaks volumes.

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
True, but I assume you don't think that his attorney speaking to the press and saying he admitted something amounts to the same as a police confession. Maybe you do.

His attorney confirmed what he reported to the police and Bureau, that police statement is now fact.

You see, to you this is semantics. But to the courts, to people with an interest in fairness, this is simply called detail. Johnson did not say what you claimed he did. You invented it to make Brown look worse.

How could I possibly make Mr. Brown, who committed felony robbery, look worse? Mr. Johnson confirms that is his companion in the video, this dispels any doubt.

Apology accepted, but you did not say that. You wrote that Johnson had made an "admission that they robbed the store". The truth is somewhat different.

Mr. Johnson stated that Mr. Brown robbed the store, this is not open for dispute and aligns with the video evidence.

Possibly. But you clearly don't know, so why did you say you did with such certainty? It's this creation of factoids, the hardening of hearsay into accepted evidence that is so inimical to the pursuit of the truth.

Do you dispute a call was was made?

Possibly. Possibly not. But that's why we don't go around saying it's proved. Because it hasn't yet been. And the fact that you and others have fallen to creating spurious evidence to bolster the claim speaks volumes.

Possibly? I have not created any evidence, I cite his companion's verified statement.

And frankly, that, and the video,mis all I need. There is no other reasonable or logical narrative to deduce form either. Mr. Brown committed a felony. End of story.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

His attorney confirmed what he reported to the police and Bureau, that police statement is now fact.

That's not what you or your source said. Your source said his attorney "reportedly" told MSNBC that Brown had stolen from the store. That's a world away from your initial insistence that Johnson had admitted that he and Brown had robbed the place. And if you don't see why it lacks the force of a formal confession then I guess you should get your lynching rope ready.

How could I possibly make Mr. Brown, who committed felony robbery, look worse? Mr. Johnson confirms that is his companion in the video, this dispels any doubt.

You could make him look worse by

- pretending his friend admitted he robbed the store
- pretending that it has been proved, as though in a court of law, that he robbed the store
- inventing a more innocent reason for the police's interest in the tape than is evident from what actually happened

Note I am not saying he didn't rob the store or that he was a good person.But your inventions are part of an attempt to harden the notion that he deserved, or at least had some culpability for, his death. That may be true, but on the evidence you have it cannot be known let alone proved.

Mr. Johnson stated that Mr. Brown robbed the store, this is not open for dispute and aligns with the video evidence.

He did not. Once again you are inventing things.

Do you dispute a call was was made?

No, but that's irrelevant. The police did not purloin the tape in response to the call. They admit this themselves!

Possibly? I have not created any evidence, I cite his companion's verified statement.

Incorrectly.

And frankly, that, and the video,mis all I need.

Thankfully a court requires a bit more.

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
That's not what you or your source said. Your source said his attorney "reportedly" told MSNBC that Brown had stolen from the store. That's a world away from your initial insistence that Johnson had admitted that he and Brown had robbed the place. And if you don't see why it lacks the force of a formal confession then I guess you should get your lynching rope ready.

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension:

my client did tell us and told the FBI that they went into the store. He told FBI that [Brown] did take cigarillos. He told that to the DOJ and the St. Louis County Police.” Source

You could make him look worse by

- pretending his friend admitted he robbed the store
- pretending that it has been proved, as though in a court of law, that he robbed the store
- inventing a more innocent reason for the police's interest in the tape than is evident from what actually happened

Well, considering his friend did say they robbed the store and the video proves that, who cares what you think about court proceedings? It is not link they are going to charge Mr. Brown with a felony at this point, are they? So you 'court of law' nonsense is a red herring.

He did not. Once again you are inventing things.

Yeah, he did.

No, but that's irrelevant. The police did not purloin the tape in response to the call. They admit this themselves!

But they did receive a call regarding a robbery.

Incorrectly.

You should give Mr. Johnson's attorney a buzz and let him know then.

Thankfully a court requires a bit more.

When do you think the court will charge Mr. Brown?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


You need to brush up on your reading comprehension:

my client did tell us and told the FBI that they went into the store. He told FBI that [Brown] did take cigarillos. He told that to the DOJ and the St. Louis County Police.” Source

Nice try. That's a different source. But amusingly it still doesn't say that he admitted the robbery. And it still doesn't carry the force of a formal confession, either in form or content - can you genuinely not see that?

It's probably a good job you didn't choose law as a career.

Well, considering his friend did say they robbed the store

Once again, you are making this up. It's an invention. A lie.

But they did receive a call regarding a robbery.

So what? It's abundantly clear that you invented something because you wanted the facts to be a certain way. You didn't know the details surrounding the situation so you just made an assumption.

You should give Mr. Johnson's attorney a buzz and let him know then.

Let him know what?

When do you think the court will charge Mr. Brown?

That's irrelevant as well. The point is that the evidence you have - much of which is invented anyway - falls far short of the standard required to conclusively say he committed a robbery. You'll note that professional media outlets acknowledge this when they write "alleged" before mentioning it.

He may well have committed a robbery. But aren't we supposed to extend the notion of innocent until proven guilty? That's always the way with the white guy who's left alive, but doesn't seem to count so much for the dead black ones.

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
Nice try. That's a different source. But amusingly it still doesn't say that he admitted the robbery. And it still doesn't carry the force of a formal confession, either in form or content - can you genuinely not see that?

It is the original source which is the only one. If you did not read it earlier in the thread it is not my concern.

It most certainly says Mr. Johnson was present for the robbery and observed Mr. Brown stealing. There cannot be a 'formal confession' for Mr. Brown since he is quite dead at is point. Stop being pedantic.

Once again, you are making this up. It's an invention. A lie.

Tell it to Mr. Johnson's attorney.

So what? It's abundantly clear that you invented something because you wanted the facts to be a certain way. You didn't know the details surrounding the situation so you just made an assumption.

Really? What was invented? The police went to the store that was robbed to collect tapes. How did they find out, telepathy?

You should give Mr. Johnson's attorney a buzz and let him know then.

Let him know what?

That's irrelevant as well. The point is that the evidence you have - much of which is invented anyway - falls far short of the standard required to conclusively say he committed a robbery. You'll note that professional media outlets acknowledge this when they write "alleged" before mentioning it.

He may well have committed a robbery. But aren't we supposed to extend the notion of innocent until proven guilty? That's always the way with the white guy who's left alive, but doesn't seem to count so much for the dead black ones.

You may be the only person here that thinks Mr. Brown did not rob the store despite Mr. Johnson's affidavits to multiple agencies and the video.

In connect until proven guilty applies to a trial, there is no trial for Mr. Brown.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

It is the original source which is the only one.

Another lie. Your original source was

www.ksdk.com...

This one is

www.msnbc.com...

Neither contains anything other than a description of what the attorney reportedly said about Johnson's description of Brown's theft. Neither amounts to any kind of confession and neither has anything like the power of a formal admission.

Furthermore neither is anywhere near close to what you originally claimed - which was that Johnson had confessed that he and Brown robbed the store.

If you did not read it earlier in the thread it is not my concern.

Unfortunately for you I did.

It most certainly says Mr. Johnson was present for the robbery and observed Mr. Brown stealing. There cannot be a 'formal confession' for Mr. Brown since he is quite dead at is point. Stop being pedantic.

You call it pedantry. I call it accuracy. I'm aware that Brown can't confess - I was talking about Johnson, who you earlier said had confessed. This was an invention.

Tell it to Mr. Johnson's attorney.

Why? He isn't claiming that Brown committed a robbery.

Really? What was invented? The police went to the store that was robbed to collect tapes. How did they find out, telepathy?

You invented the reason for them going to get the tape. You assumed it was part of the routine robbery investigation, but in fact it happened - the police say - because the press asked for it. Even they say you are wrong.

You may be the only person here that thinks Mr. Brown did not rob the store despite Mr. Johnson's affidavits to multiple agencies and the video.

In connect until proven guilty applies to a trial, there is no trial for Mr. Brown.

So you're free to pronounce him guilty? Not sure that's legally exact, actually. He most certainly hasn't been found guilty of a crime, and your continual claims that he has are simply factually incorrect.

But then legal exactitude is not your strong point, is it? Indeed any kind of accuracy seems elusive.

Dont you hate when a thread ends up 2 guys repeatedly going back and forth for pages with each other with hardly no other comments. And the posts are not even about the thread subject really

Get back to the autopsy guys. Or is that the plan to divert away from it as its showing a picture of a story closer to what the cop says and not the other side. But there is still room for unknowns for sure.

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
Another lie. Your original source was
www.ksdk.com...
This one is
www.msnbc.com...

Jesus Christ. The KDSK references the MSNBC piece which is the original source. The both have the details correct.

Neither contains anything other than a description of what the attorney reportedly said about Johnson's description of Brown's theft. Neither amounts to any kind of confession and neither has anything like the power of a formal admission.

Confession? Mr. Johnson went on record with three agencies. Considering his companion is DEAD you are never going to get a confession so stop playing semantics.

Furthermore neither is anywhere near close to what you originally claimed - which was that Johnson had confessed that he and Brown robbed the store.

They were together at the robbery, they were both suspects as the police report indicates. That is not up for debate.

You call it pedantry. I call it accuracy. I'm aware that Brown can't confess - I was talking about Johnson, who you earlier said had confessed. This was an invention.

Mr. Johnson admitted to three agencies he was present for the felony, that also makes him a participant by Missouri law. Any confirmation that it was Mr. Brown in the video and that he was with him would confirm that he was present for the commission of said felony. What are you not getting?

You invented the reason for them going to get the tape. You assumed it was part of the routine robbery investigation, but in fact it happened - the police say - because the press asked for it. Even they say you are wrong.

And how did the press find out about it? Magic?

So you're free to pronounce him guilty? Not sure that's legally exact, actually. He most certainly hasn't been found guilty of a crime, and your continual claims that he has are simply factually incorrect.

And quite frankly is never going to be found guilty of anything because he is room temperature so your pedantic harping on this point only demonstrates the circularity of your argument.

But then legal exactitude is not your strong point, is it? Indeed any kind of accuracy seems elusive.

Mr. Brown does not need to be convicted of the robbery to definitely prove that he was there when and of this shooting goes to trial. It will be considered ex post facto. But you knew that, what with your prodigious legal background.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


Jesus Christ. The KDSK references the MSNBC piece which is the original source. The both have the details correct.

You accused me of not reading the original piece and then said you reposted it. Ironically it appears you didn't even check which piece you were accusing me of not reading.

Confession? Mr. Johnson went on record with three agencies. Considering his companion is DEAD you are never going to get a confession so stop playing semantics.

He also said that Brown told the officer he was unarmed. But somehow I imagine he becomes a less credible witness for you when he's saying something you don't like.

Once again, and please try to read and digest it this time, I was taking issue with your notion that Johnson had confessed to robbery. He did not. You lied. And a media report that his attorney said something about theft does not amount to an open and shut case against Brown for robbery.

(Note as an aside that much of the media reported erroneously on the officer's injury, from a site with a track record for lying. And this is the stuff you think has the force of a formal confession? Please.)

Mr. Johnson admitted to three agencies he was present for the felony, that also makes him a participant by Missouri law. Any confirmation that it was Mr. Brown in the video and that he was with him would confirm that he was present for the commission of said felony. What are you not getting?

Well either you are wrong or the police are, because they haven't arrested Johnson for participating in this felony. How strange.

And how did the press find out about it? Magic?

What does it matter? The discussion is about the police's handling of the incident, which look distinctly fishy. It is also about your bias in assuming they always act correctly - which you showed with your assumption that they got the tape as part of the standard investigation. You just automatically assumed they did because, presumably, for you they always do. And that extends t when they shoot people.

And quite frankly is never going to be found guilty of anything because he is room temperature so your pedantic harping on this point only demonstrates the circularity of your argument.

Why do you think the respectable news outlets say "alleged" robbery?

Mr. Brown does not need to be convicted of the robbery to definitely prove that he was there when and of this shooting goes to trial. It will be considered ex post facto. But you knew that, what with your prodigious legal background.

I don't have a prodigious legal background. I do know that you can't even decide from one post to the next if even Johnson is a felon, let alone Brown. And you just make stuff up when you feel like it.

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
You accused me of not reading the original piece and then said you reposted it. Ironically it appears you didn't even check which piece you were accusing me of not reading.

They both have the same information.

He also said that Brown told the officer he was unarmed. But somehow I imagine he becomes a less credible witness for you when he's saying something you don't like.

Where did I say this? Stop putting words I my mouth.

Once again, and please try to read and digest it this time, I was taking issue with your notion that Johnson had confessed to robbery. He did not. You lied. And a media report that his attorney said something about theft does not amount to an open and shut case against Brown for robbery.

His attorney reported that he told three agencies Mr. Brown stole the merchandise and he was present t which, in Missouri, also makes him a participant in the felony.

Well either you are wrong or the police are, because they haven't arrested Johnson for participating in this felony. How strange.

Did you ever stop to think they may not have arrested him for a reason?

What does it matter? The discussion is about the police's handling of the incident, which look distinctly fishy. It is also about your bias in assuming they always act correctly - which you showed with your assumption that they got the tape as part of the standard investigation. You just automatically assumed they did because, presumably, for you they always do. And that extends t when they shoot people.

It matters a great deal as your stance would mean that there was no 911 call and that the video was taken for other reasons.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. No where in this, or other threads, have I said that the Ferguson police have acted without impropriety.

Why do you think the respectable news outlets say "alleged" robbery?

Semantics. Mr. Brown will never go on trial, will it always be 'alleged'?

I don't have a prodigious legal background. I do know that you can't even decide from one post to the next if even Johnson is a felon, let alone Brown. And you just make stuff up when you feel like it.

In Missouri they are both felons.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

They both have the same information.

Information that you have turned into something that it is not.

And I'm simply pointing out that you look silly if you accuse someone of not reading a source, and then say you're going to repost it, but actually then post something else. A bit like you're the one not following the train of the argument.

Where did I say this? Stop putting words I my mouth.

So you think his comments regarding Brown's shouting that he had no weapon are reliable?

His attorney reported that he told three agencies Mr. Brown stole the merchandise and he was present t which, in Missouri, also makes him a participant in the felony.

Did you ever stop to think they may not have arrested him for a reason?

Ah, I see. So you were right all along and the police are wrong. Even though they say Johnson isn't guilty they are just covering up for him.

That makes a ton of sense.

It matters a great deal as your stance would mean that there was no 911 call and that the video was taken for other reasons.

Half right. I'm not saying there was no call. I'm saying you invented the circumstances surrounding the police's removal of the tape to make them look better. But even their own spokespeople disagree with you, and it's pretty clear the video wasn't taken as part of the routine investigation.

Semantics. Mr. Brown will never go on trial, will it always be 'alleged'?

It's not semantics, actually. It's a vital part of the way we conduct criminal law. But even if you want to say he's guilty, I'd have a look at the way you've had to squeeze the evidence to make that possible. You're using the word of an unreliable witness who would potentially incriminate himself if he confessed and an unclear tape that doesn't conclusively prove theft or robbery. You just think it does because the same news outlets that believed Gateway Pundit told you to.

In Missouri they are both felons.

Because of the robbery? So the police are just letting this felon run free because... they feel like it?

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
Information that you have turned into something that it is not.

There is nothing to turn, his attorney was quite clear.

And I'm simply pointing out that you look silly if you accuse someone of not reading a source, and then say you're going to repost it, but actually then post something else. A bit like you're the one not following the train of the argument.

Did either one differ in their message?

So you think his comments regarding Brown's shouting that he had no weapon are reliable?

They very well may be. I am open to all evidence.

Ah, I see. So you were right all along and the police are wrong. Even though they say Johnson isn't guilty they are just covering up for him.

Whether they charge him or not is their prerogative, in Missouri he can be charged with a felony due to his being with Mr. Brown when the store was robbed.

Half right. I'm not saying there was no call. I'm saying you invented the circumstances surrounding the police's removal of the tape to make them look better. But even their own spokespeople disagree with you, and it's pretty clear the video wasn't taken as part of the routine investigation.

Really? What did I invent. I said there was a call. Obviously there was one.

It's not semantics, actually. It's a vital part of the way we conduct criminal law. But even if you want to say he's guilty, I'd have a look at the way you've had to squeeze the evidence to make that possible. You're using the word of an unreliable witness who would potentially incriminate himself if he confessed and an unclear tape that doesn't conclusively prove theft or robbery. You just think it does because the same news outlets that believed Gateway Pundit told you to.

Unclear tape? That tape looks pretty clear to anyone who does not have an agenda. Who, besides you, is saying that it was not a robbery?

Because of the robbery? So the police are just letting this felon run free because... they feel like it?

Again, he has already spoken to three agencies, has the thought crossed your mind that they have not charged him as they want him to cooperate?