Ferguson: The Other Side Of The Story.

a reply to: abe froman

Strange the article I read from the times said they did test him and found none

The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body. However, that determination could change if it turns out that there is gunshot residue on Mr. Brown’s clothing, to which Dr. Baden did not have access.

www.nytimes.com...

Which report were you going off of?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: feldercarb

We don't need clothing for gsr on his hand that was suppose to be next to the gun.

But we do need a confirmed chain of custody to make sure that no one washed the body before the second examination. The second autopsy said nothing about blood splatter patterns or blood pooling patterns.

a reply to: feldercarb

Is it the norm to wash a body when an investigation is going, dosent sound really profesionnal

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Greven
The post by freedom12 is associated to facebook, the front page of CNN is carrying a story that a purported friend of the officer called in an account to a radio talk show.

It's not a race, just because you are the first one lying (like the accomplice)that doesn't make it the truth.

No I didn't attribute it to FB sir. I was asking you for more info on what some guy you had copy/pasted from FB had said.

I heard the radio show and posted what I heard. Shortly after posting, I saw CNN was now reporting the same thing. There also a thread on it.

If it went down that way, I do not understand why the officer handled it that way......meaning after initial contact with teen's, he pulled away and to the side of the road, heard dispatch give description of robbery suspects and then attempted to apprehend them.

Why didn't the officer flip on sirens and make a felony stop?

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: feldercarb

Is it the norm to wash a body when an investigation is going, dosent sound really profesionnal

The police did finish their investigation. Did the family notify both the St Louis department responsible for the body and the mortuary before transfer of the body that a second autopsy was to be performed? If that did not occur then neither the county nor the mortuary might have known not to wash the body prior to the second autopsy.

a reply to: feldercarb

So your saying the police investigation as been finished already but they only have come out with the results, which one is it.

My questioning is the timing of the report, im not defending the cop or the kid that died, but cant ask questions right, makes me a rebel rouser.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: abe froman

And you dont have an agenda with an op that attacks people for not seeing this situation in the same light as you.

Terrible op that attacks people, and your answer to why they didint tell us what suposedly happened is because there proffesional, comical at best.

the OP attacked no one. I am simply amazed that intelligent people read so much into a post that is not even in it.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: feldercarb

So your saying the police investigation as been finished already but they only have come out with the results, which one is it.

My questioning is the timing of the report, im not defending the cop or the kid that died, but cant ask questions right, makes me a rebel rouser.

Police did their autopsy and are doing whatever else still. The police have not released their finding; instead the medical examiner for the family has released his findings. We have not gotten the official police/county findings as of yet. No police/county autopsy report, no ballistics, no crime scene photos, no toxicology reports on either Michael or Darren, no medical report on Darren's injury. Nothing official. We have an unofficial report of Darren's side of the story and a questionable source for Michael having pot in his system besides the family's autopsy report.

Add: There is to be a third autopsy performed by the DOJ. An additonal question is was a chain of custody continued to the third autopsy. If the body was prepped for a funeral before the third autopsy was announced then some of the results from the third autopsy may be questionable.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Must have missed the part where he calls out people that had a different opinion that his as rebel rousers.

Move along clint.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Must have missed the part where he calls out people that had a different opinion that his as rebel rousers.

Move along clint.

He attacked no one in the thread as was indicated above and his term of rabble rousers was reference to those fuming the riots not people in the thread.

Apparently that punk felt real lucky. But his luck just ran out.

We don`t know what the police are saying about their autopsy because they haven`t released a statement yet.
No gunshot residue on the victim could be bad news for the Brown team,gunshot residue on the victims hands would be damning for the Brown team, but we don`t know what the results of the GSR test are because the police haven`t said yet.
Everyone agrees that the gun discharged inside the vehicle, no gunshot residue or burn marks on the victim would indicate that the gun wasn`t aimed at the victim when the gun discharged, so he wasn`t struck by a bullet at that time.The police know exactly where the gun was aimed by the hole in the car, but they aren`t telling yet.

So, that begs the question, why would the officer draw his gun inside the vehicle and voluntarily discharge it in a direction that wasn`t aimed at the victim?
One possibility is that he was trying to shoot the victim but missed from only a foot away,leaving no GSR or burn marks on the victim.
Another possibility is that he did not voluntarily discharge the weapon or that he did not discharge the weapon at all.That leaves only one other person who could have discharged the weapon,or caused it to be discharged involuntarily,and that would very bad news for the Brown team.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Im sorry did you have a point, i must have missed it, the only fact on this case is that the only people that know what really happened dont seem to be forthcoming with the whole story.Add speculations and media induced fake outrage on both sides.

I see a nice in your face troll thread with no substance.

Have a nice day

a reply to: ChesterJohn


a reply to: dukeofjive696969 Police are professionals who know that investigation takes time, rabble rousers immediately start spewing whatever non sense best fits their agenda.

from the op

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Greven
The post by freedom12 is associated to facebook, the front page of CNN is carrying a story that a purported friend of the officer called in an account to a radio talk show.

It's not a race, just because you are the first one lying (like the accomplice)that doesn't make it the truth.

And you cannot link this in your OP or subsequent post why? Make a claim, show a source. That's how it works.

It's not about being a race. It's about seeing that details of this 'story' mesh with the autopsy, and comparing which came first. If the 'story' came first, it gains standing because of the later autopsy. If the autopsy came first, that seems fishy.

Also, Johnson is in no way Brown's accomplice.

the shot on the left side of the side arm is a "normal place shot" for when you running away ( your right arm left side, would be face backward )

IF he was running toward It would be on the right side of his arm.



I can't see a way for the (Inside-side) of the right arm unless hes running aways. Even stand still it doesnt work

a reply to: FreeQuebec86
Or suppose he has his hands up, palm facing the officer. Maybe bent a bit, could see that.

Can't see any way that could happen while charging unless he had his hands way up in the air like some cartoon monster.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

the only fact on this case is that the only people that know what really happened dont seem to be forthcoming with the whole story.

Duke, think about it for a second.

The decision to charge the officer, or not, has not been made.

Until that decision is made, no official source will provide any evidence in the case.

The reason no evidence will be provided is because if the officer is charged, the jury pool will be tainted with it going public making a fair trial almost impossible resulting in a mistrial.

So, the very reason they are not releasing information, backed by evidence, is so the evidence can be preserved and the officer CAN be charged.

When have you ever seen a press conference for a local murder trial where the police present every bit of the evidence to the media before the trial? It doesn't happen.

a reply to: Greven

Exact and little lol...

And yeah... if he was shoot hands up that could work....

So shot in the back ( not his back ) or shoot hand raise confirme....


there is 2 shot or 3 in this place... ( one near sholder )



Next possibility is shot fire during the struggle next to the car

a reply to: FreeQuebec86

the shot on the left side of the side arm is a "normal place shot" for when you running away ( your right arm left side, would be face backward )

IF he was running toward It would be on the right side of his arm.



I can't see a way for the (Inside-side) of the right arm unless hes running aways. Even stand still it doesnt work

The family (or their attorney) hired an expert Medical Examiner, that has many years of experience in New York City, to do a second autopsy.

This expert did not come to the conclusions you did. The expert gave a very "non-committal" opinion and did not speculate. The expert pretty much said any number of things could have happened based on the facts he has.

Now if someone, hired by the family (or their attorney with a very powerful one-sided agenda) could not come to the conclusion you are making, how can you be so sure?

Do you have many years of experience and any law enforcement, forensic or medical field? What knowledge are you drawing from to make these conclusions?

a reply to: areyouserious2010
This should probably be discussed in the thread that was made to discuss the autopsy reports. One doesn't have to be an expert to think getting shot in the inside of the arm 3 times and into the top of the head 2 times seems to contradict the police account.