Ferguson PD Caught Lying Again – Michael Brown’s Autopsy Condemns Officer Wilson

Ferguson PD Caught Lying Again – Michael Brown’s Autopsy Condemns Officer Wilson (VIDEO)

If you listened to the media reports this past week, it would appear that evidence had come forward to exonerate Officer Darren Wilson in the death of teen Michael Brown in August. It began when the St. Louis Dispatch ran an article titled “Official autopsy shows Michael Brown had close-range wound to his hand, marijuana in system” and quickly propagated throughout the net. If you read it, or the articles based on it, the impression was that the coroner who handled the autopsy had found that Michael Brown had attempted to grab Officer Wilson’s gun, and in so doing the officer was justified in the use of force which resulted in Michael’s death. They even included quotes from a forensics expert, Dr, Judy Melinek, which appeared to indicate familiarity with the case, and justification of the teens untimely death.

Problem is, the autopsy report says nothing of the sort.

So the leak was from the police department exonerating the officer...but it was a lie.

Sure Brown was an idiot who may or may not have just stole some cigars and pushed the cashier. Does this justify a death sentence?

We need to wait for the facts before passing judgment.

If the officer was acting in self defense..then it was justified...if not it is murder.

my very personal take is this:
this whole story is a case of stupidities colliding.
It might be hard for our pattern seeking brains to accept, but sometimes things are just random:
A stupid man shoplifting and pushing a shop owner around, in front of the cameras, and a stupid police officer that forgot common sense and years of training meet, tragedy ensues.
then we have to build a story around it, because it HAS to make more sense than that.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Oh please....this story is so biased it is ridiculous. That and the person writing the article seems to suggest that they know more about an autopsy and its results than the actual person doing the autopsy and the reports. So they are saying the officer must have had his gun drawn already for this to have happened? That is pretty ridiculous, as was the entire argument in the article.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

It is a case study in how law enforcement games the entire system to achieve outcomes. They don't want to present the truth. If they were interested in the truth, thy would already be wearing cameras and have gun barrel cams.

If you trust them handling evidence, you're a fool.

Haters, betrayers, liars and thieves.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

I got a migraine from reading that article. Where exactly is the lying part contained?

a reply to: Bone75

Ferguson PD Caught Lying Again – Michael Brown’s Autopsy Condemns Officer Wilson

As for the forensics expert, turned out that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch had completely misrepresented her in their piece. On “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnel” Dr. Melinek blasted the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for their complete misrepresentation of her statements and went on the record with her findings based on the autopsy report.

They lied about what the forensics expert said.

This whole Ferguson thing is really starting to turn into a circus.

You have one side screaming injustice, one side suggesting self defense, and anyone who seems to speak up in support of Officer Wilson is branded a racist and ostracized. This is in spite of mounting evidence of a violent confrontation between Brown and Wilson, which gives credence to Wilson's side of the story.

Personally do I believe that Wilson used excessive force? Probably, but he was also probably in very real fear of his life. If someone tried to wrench my gun from me, I'd not hesitate that should I gain control of the weapon, I'd fire it. Multiple Times.

Of course, that is if the evidence proves that Brown went for Wilson's gun. Still very much up in the air at this point, though at the beginning I sided with the Ferguson protesters, with each new piece of evidence that finds it way to the public, I find myself sympathizing with the kid less and less.

Blame the victim. Hide the evidence. Bury the past.

That article is pure conjecture.

Basically, it's saying that the evidence is still the same, but they are wrong, because armchair forensics say this was clearly a defensive move. Right, Brown is like Steven Segal. He saw the weapon and closed the distance to disarm the officer?

WHY IS HE SO CLOSE TO THE COP?

WHY IS THE COP GOING FOR HIS WEAPON?

What exactly do you think occurred in the seconds before the first round was discharged?

a reply to: intrptr

I'd totally agree with you if I had any suspicion at all that Wilson was a "crooked cop". His service record is pretty spic and span. No evidence of racism during his entire career on the force, and had never been accused of using excessive during his long career as an LEO.

His past would seem to indicate that he was not some violent Judge Dredd wannabe who dispenses justice from the business end of his pistol, as much as the media has tried to portray him as such.

Tensions Rise as Ferguson, Missouri Leaks New Michael Brown Autopsy Report

However, Dr. Judy Melinek, one of the forensic experts who was quoted by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about the autopsy report, said that the newspaper took her comments "out of context."
The paper quotes Melinek as saying that the report of Brown's autopsy "supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound. If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he's going for the officer's gun." However, during an interview with MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, Melinek said that she believed the findings could be explained by other scenarios as well. "I'm not saying that Brown going for the gun is the only explanation. I'm saying the officer said he was going for the gun and the right thumb wound supports that," she said, reports MSNBC. "I have limited information. It could also be consistent with other scenarios. That's the important thing. That's why the witnesses need to speak to the grand jury and the grand jury needs to hear all the unbiased testimony and compare those statements to the physical evidence."

The doctor says this it was not the only explanation for said wound but just one of many possible scenarios.

The other stories are claiming that th Dr. was stating that it was the only explanation, therefore it was fact he went for the gun...which is a lie and misrepresentation of what the Dr. actually said.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

It sounds more like a case of media spin, rather than Law Enforcement tampering. The autopsy results were published, and the media ran with it.

I find it idiotic that people are so willing to exonerate Wilson when all of the evidence has not been processed, yet so willing to condemn Brown.

I condemn neither until all evidence has come forward.

The issue I am having is the struggle in car. Was Brown in fear for his life or was Wilson?

If Brown was going after the gun...why did he stop or did he push the gun away which caused it to fire and then run? If Wilson was in fear for his life...why shoot only once in the car.

Like a lot of you gun owners said...if someone is going after your gun..you going to shoot them down there not wait for them run.

Why did he not call backup when the struggle was over...why did he get out of his car to open fire mulitple times...when he was obviously not in danger at the time.

There are three alternatives to what caused the head wound said the forensic expert..charging, getting on his knees or falling.

The charging makes no sense, why run and then turn back to charge?

Makes more sense if he ran and then cop opened fire..hit him and he turned around to give up.

Gotta have to wait till all the evidence.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

It is a case study in how law enforcement games the entire system to achieve outcomes. They don't want to present the truth. If they were interested in the truth, thy would already be wearing cameras and have gun barrel cams.

If you trust them handling evidence, you're a fool.

Haters, betrayers, liars and thieves.

What are you talking about?

In what scenario would you trust the investigation and evidence?

It was a completely separate police department gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses.

It is a completely different entity, the St. Louis County Attorney's Office, who is presenting the case to the Grand Jury.

It is going to be the Grand Jury, who are everyday people and not police officers, who renders the final decision.

Unfortunately, I think you are just unhappy with the result you may see starting to form.

The fact that you are unhappy with the result does not change the facts that lead to the result.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I'd totally agree with you if I had any suspicion at all that Wilson was a "crooked cop".

Its not about "Wilson".

Its about that whole police posture there, the history of abuse of the citizenry and how pissed off they are about it.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

They lied about what the forensics expert said.

I don't think they lied. I think it was just their interpretation.

You can read seven different sources and get seven different interpretations based on the views and agenda of the source.

It is ultimately up to the Grand Jury who is hearing all of the evidence.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

I'm not trying to say I've "decided" on who is innocent or guilty. If evidence points to Wilson being a murderer, I'll readily accept that.

I will say however, that adrenaline makes you do some pretty silly things sometimes. He may have turned and ran after the first shot was fired, only to turn around and charge for seemingly no reason at all. Fight or Flight is real instinctual response, and often times the "flight" part of that instinct can turn to "fight" awful fast.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

I condemn neither until all evidence has come forward.

Thank you.

I think this is the appropriate stance to take on this issue. The problem is, many, many people are not willing to be patient enough to allow this to happen. When people are not patient enough to allow all the evidence to come out, people start filling in the blanks. When people fill in the blanks, they fill them with scenarios that fit their own personal feelings. This can range from scenarios that condemn the officer or scenarios that condemn Brown.

The issue I am having is the struggle in car. Was Brown in fear for his life or was Wilson?

If Brown was going after the gun...why did he stop or did he push the gun away which caused it to fire and then run? If Wilson was in fear for his life...why shoot only once in the car.

Like a lot of you gun owners said...if someone is going after your gun..you going to shoot them down there not wait for them run.

Why did he not call backup when the struggle was over...why did he get out of his car to open fire mulitple times...when he was obviously not in danger at the time.

There are three alternatives to what caused the head wound said the forensic expert..charging, getting on his knees or falling.

The charging makes no sense, why run and then turn back to charge?

Makes more sense if he ran and then cop opened fire..hit him and he turned around to give up.

Evidence of what I said above.

a reply to: intrptr

Its not about "Wilson".

Its about that whole police posture there, the history of abuse of the citizenry and how pissed off they are about it.

Another good point is raised here.

This trial IS about the incident that happened between Wilson and Brown.

The two issues have to be separated so that proper attention and due diligence can be given to both.

Wilson cannot be convicted because of an alleged atmosphere of poor police posture or poor community relations. Wilson must be condemned or exonerated based on the facts of the incident.

The police posture cannot be excused if Wilson is exonerated. There is no doubt that steps need to be taken to fix the police-community relationship in this community whether Wilson is indicted or not.

Separate the two issues and give each the attention and due diligence it deserves.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

They lied about what the forensics expert said.

Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.” She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.”

Nowhere in her interview does she deny making those statements. She claims they were taken out of context. By the way, the Ferguson police department didn't write the article, a reporter did.

Bottom line... the autopsy shows Brown was reaching for the gun, this article shows that deniers are reaching for another explanation.

Funny how the expert hired by his family kept his mouth shut about the wound to his thumb *rolls eyes*.