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

originally posted by: Greven
Figure out a scenario where Wilson managed those shots on a supposedly charging target.

If that were the case why did Dr. Baden say it could have been either charging or surrendering? What forensic expertise do you have that enables you to make a more conclusive determination than a professional in the field of pathology?

I do not have to figure a scenario for anything, I have no horse in this race and opt to view the evidence impartially. Unlike yourself who seems to think they know better than someone who has done this for a living for decades.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
You accused me of being dishonest and disingenuous when I suggest that the police account seems off.

If you had read what Dr. Baden said, you would see that he was talking about a single shot to the head, which came from above the head (ergo, the head was bent or he was prone on the ground).

There were a least two shots that came roughly from that direction, as a second shot shattered his eye, down through his face, and embedded itself in his collarbone.

originally posted by: Greven
If you had read what Dr. Baden said, you would see that he was talking about a single shot to the head, which came from above the head (ergo, the head was bent or he was prone on the ground).

You are again being dishonest and disingenuous, at no point did Dr. Baden sound the crown wound was resultant of a firearm discharge when Mr. Brown was prone on the ground.

You obviously need to listen to what he said again as he stated, for those of us who can listen rationally, that it either happened surrendering or charging, NOT laying on the ground.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
You do not know what you are talking about. Again.

In your use of the word, it is apparent that you do not even know what "disingenuous" means.
Allow me to correct you here and now, so that you may improve in the future. It's disingenuous if I pretend to know less about something than I really do.

“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.”

Specifically, that shot in the head - as I mentioned - is the one he speaks to be 'charging forward or giving up.'

You are misrepresenting my words. I said "ergo, the head was bent or he was prone on the ground", which is the only way physics allows for that shot to have struck him in the manner that it did. Dr. Baden says it was the former, and I'm not in any way disagreeing with that. I'm saying those are the only two ways he could have gotten hit in that manner to relay the angle at which it struck Brown. It came from 'above' relative to him standing straight, which means his head was bent (as Dr. Baden says) or he was prone on the ground.

What is wrong with you, because you sure as hell seem to have a horse in this race to me.

originally posted by: Greven
...ergo, the head was bent or he was prone on the ground'...

The forensic pathologist retained by Mr. Brown's family, Dr. Baden, mentioned nothing of Mr. Brown being in a prone position when the wound to the top of the head was delivered. This is purely your own personal interjection into the findings. Hence you are both disingenuous, linking your findings to his, and dishonest, as this is not what the evidence purports. If Dr. Baden, who is an EXPERT, felt the wound could have occurred in the prone position he would have said so as this would have played into the 'police shot him while he was down scenario'.

But guess what? He did not say that. He was quite clear that Mr. Brown was upright.

Stop digging your hole.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
You are stretching this idiocy really far, just as you did with the "accomplice" bit.

Do you disagree with Dr. Baden's finding that two shots struck Brown from 'above' (it is a relation of angle for goodness sake)?
Do you disagree with Dr. Baden's finding that three shots struck Brown's inner arm?

Do you somehow think this matches anything the police claim happened?

a reply to: Greven

I do not disagree with anything Dr. Baden has stated, his interpretation of the evidence is good enough for me.

Not you, it would seem, who needs to invent additional findings, '...or prone on the ground...', that one of the world's more respected forensic pathologists never implied. That is what is truly idiotic.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Let me put this bluntly: you are delusional.
He was shot in the top of his head, with a wound indicated to be traveling downwards into his skull, according to Dr. Baden.
I did not say that he was prone. I am not conjuring up additional findings.

I was relating the angle that this happened in a manner which would be understood by all. Except you, it seems.
There is only one way this could have happened according to events: the gun used was pointed at the top of Brown's head, not from the front or back or side.

originally posted by: Greven
I did not say that he was prone.

Nooooooooo. That was some other guy named Greven:

originally posted by: Greven
I said "ergo, the head was bent or he was prone on the ground"...

I had to do soooo much searching to find that quote only five posts up from here.

There is only one way this could have happened according to events: the gun used was pointed at the top of Brown's head, not from the front or back or side.

Stop backpedalling. 'Prone on the ground' would not have given you a wound like the one in Dr. Baden's forensic report. You obviously got called out on your fabricating and now need to change your story and choice of words to fit the evidence. Shameful.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Context seems to be a troubling concept for you.

DO you have anything to say about the autopsy, or are you merely going to continue this crusade of ignorance?

a reply to: Greven

The context is you need to amend your statement that Mr. Brown was prone on the ground when he was shot.

As for the pathology report, I agree with Dr. Baden, there is not enough evidence to make a conclusive determination.

Dr. Baden says the wound on his forearm was back to front and that that suggests he had his hands up in a typical surrender position. Someone should ask him if the same wound would be produced if Brown was running towards the officer. No one charges someone with their hands down at their sides. When we run our elbows are bent and our forearms are tucked close to our chests.

After watching Anderson Cooper's interview with the doctor's assistant, and seeing where exactly the wound was (according to him), I'd say its more consistent with someone charging than someone with their hands up. He would've had to twist his arm unnaturally for the doctor's suggestion to be correct.

Double post.

a reply to: Bone75
Here, look at this:

originally posted by: cripmeister

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.

Or since the lowest wounds are not visible, the autopsy report and story.

Place your right arm down at your side, palm away from your body, and use your other hand to poke where a shot hit that arm. Keep it in place, and rotate it however you see fit. This is where I see problems with the police story, by trying to reenact the police scenario using the information Dr. Baden provided.

Isn't it interesting that Baden has been involved in so many high profile cases. I just read this article:

He chaired the federal committee that re-investigated the deaths of President Kennedy (Baden said it was Oswald) and Martin Luther King, Jr. (Baden said it was James Earl Ray).

Working with journalists, producers, and private legal teams, he investigated the deaths of the lost Tsar Nicholas, John Belushi, the president of Poland, Nicole Brown Simpson, Liz McPherson, Kathleen Savio, and, earlier this month, Eric Garner, who died in an alleged choke hold on the streets of New York City. Along the way, he also hosted HBO’s hit series “Autopsy” and landed a contract — active for more than a decade — as a “Death Correspondent” for FOX News.

Coroner Michael Brown

Quite the list of other questionable incidents that he has been a part of.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xuenchen

Sounds like somebody is not happy with the results so far.

I wonder what is in "question".

Can't wait to compare the Complete un-edited results of both.

Considering that we haven't heard anything from either side, we could conclude that the findings don't exclude either the scenario as laid out by Darren Wilson or by the witnesses.

The police reports were released by Ferguson police and county sheriffs. The were both heavily redacted and missing material elements that are routinely included in a police report. What are the police hiding? Are they still cooking their story so it's just enough to create reasonable doubt? Would the full reports allow the citizens to resolve the narrative? Is that narrative damning for police? LOL. IMO, that's the game they are playing with the full support of a large segment of the population of the US.
Shame on you. You will get the country you deserve. Don't whine when they kick down your door.

With an autopsy performed already. The second one will be difficult. All of Big Mike's brain and organs are now in a bio hazard bag stuffed in his body. All his organs are sliced like bread. The only thing they might be able to conclude is bullet trajectory.