KU Journalism Major Shreds “Case” Against Mike Brown

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Except for the fact Brown had gunshot residue on his hand AND his blood was found inside the car, which puts Brown partially inside the car and his hand close enough to the gun or on the gun in order to have residue from a shot.

Unfortunate that no fingerprints were taken from the gun before it was cleaned. Or perhaps they tried and there were none, so they said none were taken. Too bad the officer washed blood from his hands... I'd think an officer of the law would know how important forensics were.

I'm just glad there are investigations ongoing.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

If that's the case then I hope Benevolent is on our side.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Except for the fact Brown had gunshot residue on his hand AND his blood was found inside the car, which puts Brown partially inside the car and his hand close enough to the gun or on the gun in order to have residue from a shot.

I believe the blood was found on the outside of the police car, on the door. At any rate, we DO know that Wilson had Brown's blood on HIS hands and it could have easily been transferred by Wilson himself to the vehicle as well as the gun.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
And could you hit a moving target in the same situation they were in at over 100 feet with six rounds?

Not at all. And that's exactly why this discrepancy of distance leads me to believe that SOMEONE is lying about the proximity of Wilson to Brown or to his SUV or SOMETHING. He COULDN'T have hit Brown at that distance unless it was pure luck.

See... I don't automatically believe Wilson's story, so I'm saying that someone is lying.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Forensics prove the officer told the truth about Brown trying to steal his weapon and about Brown turning and charging toward the officer to attack for a second time.

What forensics could prove that Brown tried to steal Wilson's weapon? If Wilson already had his weapon pulled and shot Browns hand, Brown would still have residue on his hand. If Wilson pointed the gun at Brown and Brown grabbed it to prevent dying, he would have residue on his hand. And Wilson washed blood from his hands. He could have accidentally transferred Brown's blood inside the car.

The residue forensics prove one thing: Brown had residue on his hands. At some point, Brown's hand was close to the gun when it went off. They do not prove a struggle OR where or how it happened.

Question - Do you automatically accept the testimony of the alleged eyewitness'?

Absolutely not. I don't know what happened any more than anyone else. The difference is that I am not claiming to.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Like any criminal case, there are liars on both sides of the aisle. That is when the forensic evidence comes out and the truth, many times, comes along with it. I saw inconsistencies with both sides accounts of the events, and eyewitness testimony has been demonstrably proved to be unreliable most of the time.

I saw the autopsy reports and other forensic evidence and made my opinion based on that. I (typically) don't look to eyewitness testimony to give me the facts of any case.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

Cops in this situation may have an agenda to lie and cover for their own. But the Brown devotees have their own liar agenda and that needs acknowledgement as well. That's why we all have to look at the unemotional and indisputable forensics. Forensics don't lie.

IMO -- ANYONE/EVERYONE (unless they have a mental problem) is going to try to put themselves in "best light" when being questioned. It's human nature.

I don't consider that lying. Seeing the positive angle vs the negative of any situation is not lying -- it's perspective.

The forensics does not support Brown. It supports Wilson.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Additionally, I see many many, times that when a case like this gets national attention, people expect there to be some slamdunk piece of evidence that proves right or wrong in the case. That sad reality is, life isn't like CSI, NCIS, or any other forensic procedural show where the facts of a case are purely black and white after the team goes in and shines their magic flashlight at the crime scene. In fact, this has been officially dubbed as a cognitive bias and has made life generally hell for prosecutors and defense attorneys when making a case.

The CSI Effect

More on the CSI Effect

a reply to: FlyersFan

Forensics prove the officer told the truth about Brown trying to steal his weapon and about Brown turning and charging toward the officer to attack for a second time. Trusting the forensics isn't 'blindly taking the officers word'.

No. The jury was asked if there was "Probable Cause" to believe that Wilson DID NOT ACT IN SELF DEFENSE.

This is what the prosecutors told the Ferguson Grand Jury before they started their deliberations:

And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.
thinkprogress.org...

All the botched forensics and witness confusion does is allowed for "Reasonable Doubt" as to if Wilson WAS NOT IN FEAR FOR HIS LIFE. The Grand Jury could not see fit to rule that evidence proved that Wilson WAS NOT IN FEAR FOR HIS LIFE, and therefore, they couldn't indict him.

a reply to: windword
You are right. I used the wrong words. I'll rephrase.
The forensics did not support a case against Wilson.

I highly suggest everyone take a look at the following link. There are all the documents from the testimony, the forensics reports, the microscopic reports and all the pictures released. In them you can see the blood inside the car which is drops of blood, not transfer. You can see the distance from the body to the car and plenty of other stuff.

www.nytimes.com...

It also turns out the prosecutors showed the Grand Jury a law that the Supreme Court had long nullified

St. Louis County prosecutors may have misled the grand jury investigating the police shooting of Michael Brown into believing that Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson was justified in shooting Brown merely because the unarmed black 18-year-old fled from the officer, according to a review of the grand jury documents by MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell.

Before Wilson testified to the grand jury on September 16, prosecutors gave grand jurors an outdated statute that said police officers can shoot a suspect that's simply fleeing. This statute was deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1985; the court ruled that a fleeing suspect must, at least in a police officer's reasonable view, pose a dangerous threat to someone or have committed a violent felony to justify a shooting. Prosecutors, who had full control of the evidence presented to the grand jury, took more than two months to correct their mistake, O'Donnell said. The prosecutors on November 21 — just three days before the grand jury reached a decision — gave the correct standards to the grand jury. But as O'Donnell explained, the prosecutors didn't specify what exactly was wrong with the outdated statute — and they didn't even clearly say, after they were asked, to the grand jurors that Supreme Court rulings do indeed override Missouri law.

No one has disputed that Brown did, at one point, run from Wilson. The legal debate, based on eyewitness testimony, has always centered on whether Brown attempted to surrender during the final moments of his encounter with Wilson. If Brown did attempt to surrender, Wilson may have been on the wrong side of the law when he killed the teen.

www.vox.com...

So far what is being revealed is that this may have been a legal lynching.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Could you post the picture of the diagram that shows where the SUV, Officer Wilson and Brown's body were in relation to each other? I cannot log onto the NYT.

originally posted by: windword

All the botched forensics and witness confusion does is allowed for "Reasonable Doubt" as to if Wilson WAS NOT IN FEAR FOR HIS LIFE. The Grand Jury could not see fit to rule that evidence proved that Wilson WAS NOT IN FEAR FOR HIS LIFE, and therefore, they couldn't indict him.

What botched forensics?

What witness confusion?

Could you please clarify those?

IMO -- as far as fear for his life. Wilson had already been physically assaulted in his car. Or is that not true?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Could you post the picture of the diagram that shows where the SUV, Officer Wilson and Brown's body were in relation to each other? I cannot log onto the NYT.

Evidence tag 21 is a shell from Wilsons weapon...Brown's body was just on the other side of the vehicle in the background....I don't know where the other shells are but there are pics of at least 2 in this spot and some marked on the street.



I can't post the pics as they are huge and I don't have time to edit them to post them, but there is a link to one that shows the relative distance.

Here is the pic of the whole scene....the body is behind the blinders and Wilsons vehicle is the one close to the fire hydrant with the back of it to the camera. The vehicle in the foreground is the same vehicle you can see in the pic with the evidence tag for a shell from Wilsons weapon. As you can see.....much closer than 140ft.

a reply to: Annee

What botched forensics?

Well, off the top of my head. Darren Wilson washed blood evidence off his hands without it having been photographed and inspected for blood spatter direction, etc, and the fact that the gun was bagged and tagged by Wilson himself, after returning to the police station, violating "Chain of Custody" protocol.

The Medical examiner took no measurements or pictures at the scene.

What witness confusion?

There was the claim of witnesses changing their story after hearing of conflicting forensic evidence. Wilson himself is said to have changed his story 3 times, and the first officer on the scene "forgot" to takes notes as Wilson gave his first statement to him, as "There was so much going on"!

That's not to say that there were not good witnesses who testified representing both side of the story. Just that there was a lot of conflicting testimony and testimonies full of holes.

ETA

IMO -- as far as fear for his life. Wilson had already been physically assaulted in his car. Or is that not true?

That's his story. Some witnesses say that Wilson used his car as a weapon, almost hitting the men, then slamming his door into Brown and pulling him into the car by his shirt.

Blood spatter and tissue on the inside of the car, not from transfer.....also showing one of the bullet holes from one of the rounds fired inside the car....

This is the round that he said he thought he had hit brown in the leg with when he fired from inside the vehicle. It is actually the one that hit Brown's thumb/hand when the struggle happened which is where the blood and tissue from the picture above came from....yes that is blood and tissue on the door interior that splattered against it when the round hit his thumb/hand inside the car then traveled into the door and did not penetrate the outer metal of the door.



And the outside of the car showing that the round did not penetrate the outer door.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Annee

What botched forensics?

Well, off the top of my head. Darren Wilson washed blood evidence off his hands without it having been photographed and inspected for blood spatter direction, etc, and the fact that the gun was bagged and tagged by Wilson himself, after returning to the police station, violating "Chain of Custody" protocol.

The Medical examiner took no measurements or pictures at the scene.

What witness confusion?

There was the claim of witnesses changing their story after hearing of conflicting forensic evidence. Wilson himself is said to have changed his story 3 times, and the first officer on the scene "forgot" to takes notes as Wilson gave his first statement to him, as "There was so much going on"!

That's not to say that there were not good witnesses who testified representing both side of the story. Just that there was a lot of conflicting testimony and testimonies full of holes.

ETA

IMO -- as far as fear for his life. Wilson had already been physically assaulted in his car. Or is that not true?

That's his story. Some witnesses say that Wilson used his car as a weapon, almost hitting the men, then slamming his door into Brown and pulling him into the car by his shirt.

The link I posted has plenty of pictures taken at the scene while the body is still there....the medical examiner is not responsible for measuring crime scene distances....though you can get a much better idea of the actual distance by looking at all the pictures in my link.

a reply to: intrptr

No injustice was done in Ferguson, by jury justice was done!!!
This thread belongs in the rat forum.