KU Journalism Major Shreds “Case” Against Mike Brown

a reply to: Vasa Croe

There is wide consensus that the forensic evidence was unorthodox, at the very least.

‘Darren Wilson had told me that he had packaged the weapon and it was currently in that evidence bag,’’ the detective told the grand jury. ‘‘Now, at that point in time I never checked to verify that, it was done later,’’ the detective said.

An FBI agent interviewed by the grand jury said he did tape his interview with Wilson. The agent, who was not identified, said Wilson washed up immediately after the shooting because he was worried about the danger presented by some one else’s blood, not about preserving evidence.

‘‘His concern was not of evidence, but as a biohazard or what possible blood hazards it might attract,’’ said the agent, who like other witnesses was not identified by name.

LOL Was Wilson worried about Ebola?

When Wilson returned to the police department after the shooting, he was permitted to drive by himself. No one photographed his bloodied hands before he washed up at the station because ‘‘there was no photographer available.’’

The transcript showed that local officers who interviewed Wilson immediately after the shooting did not tape the conversations and sometimes conducted them with other police personnel present.

An investigator with the St. Louis County Medical Examiner’s office testified that he opted not to take measurements at the crime scene.

‘‘I got there, it was self-explanatory what happened,’’ said the investigator, whose name was not released, in his grand jury testimony. ‘‘Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there.’’

Sounds legit!

At the crime scene, the medical examiner did not see stippling, the residue of gunpowder on clothing that can indicate shots fired at close range. Eventually an autopsy found evidence of stippling.

To bad the ME didn't take pictures!

The accounts occasionally revealed inconsistencies. For example, two investigators who interviewed Wilson immediately after the incident said Wilson told them only one shot was fired by Wilson from inside the Chevy Tahoe police cruiser.

But in his testimony, Wilson said two shots were fired inside the car, among several misfires.

Wilson ultimately said he fired two shots inside the vehicle. After one shot fired he noticed shattered glass and saw blood on his hand, an indication, he said, that Brown had been hit.

However, a Ferguson police officer and a detective with the St. Louis County Police said that Wilson told them only one shot was fired inside the car. The two officers — one a 38-year veteran of the Ferguson police force and the other a county detective — were among the first to talk with Wilson after the fatal shooting. Wilson and the other officers said the weapon failed to fire multiple times inside the vehicle.

www.bostonglobe.com...

I rarely watch TV, but I do watch Forensic files and other similar shows.

I am fascinated by the science of crime. I will/do accept forensics over everything else.

It's been established for quite some time --- eyewitnesses are not very credible when it comes to facts.

I have 2 daughters, 3 years apart, that grew up together in the same house. When they reminisce about their childhood, it's as if they grew up on different planets. It is a truly fascinating phenomenom. People just don't see the same thing, from the same perspective.

originally posted by: windword

There is wide consensus that the forensic evidence was unorthodox, at the very least.

According to who?

What is your factual qualified source disputing the forensics.

a reply to: Annee

According to the sources I listed in my posts. Among others.

www.dailykos.com...

www.bostonglobe.com...

Unorthodox police procedures emerge in grand jury documents

a reply to: Vasa Croe

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.

"Browns blood inside the car" doesn't put Brown "inside" the car. Are you making that up?

…the relevant witness statements written by Mark Sumner, it appears that the initial aggressor in the conflict was Wilson who multiple witnesses stated nearly hit Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson with his car, and then actually did hit them with the car door as he opened it, which then bounced back onto him. He then reached through the window and grabbed onto Brown by the shirt and throat.

a reply to: NotMoose

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

A grand jury doesn't deliver justice, only indictments.

"Justice" is served by a verdict in a trial. Who doesn't want to see it go to trial? Those that want to deny justice.

By the way, welcome to ATS.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe

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.

"Browns blood inside the car" doesn't put Brown "inside" the car. Are you making that up?

…the relevant witness statements written by Mark Sumner, it appears that the initial aggressor in the conflict was Wilson who multiple witnesses stated nearly hit Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson with his car, and then actually did hit them with the car door as he opened it, which then bounced back onto him. He then reached through the window and grabbed onto Brown by the shirt and throat.

I see this little snippet posted over and over again, when it has been proven (by the forensics) that Brown was the aggressor and Wilson acted in self defense. The witness testimony from BOTH sides was unreliable, so the forensic evidence had to show self defense or not. This was all made clear when the grand jury evidence was released to the public.

Browns blood inside the police vehicle indicates a struggle took place in the vehicle. Bullet damage to the vehicle by the weapon firing also indicates a struggle inside the vehicle occurred. The GSR on Brown's hand indicates he was at least close enough to the gun to get GSR on his hands when the weapon was fired. The only reasonable conclusion for GSR on Brown's hands is that he was reaching for the gun, or had a hand on it when it was fired. The only way for this blood from Brown to get into the vehicle was for a struggle to have occured, as Brown was fatally wounded 148 from the police vehicle, therefore no blood from that encounter could have ended up in the vehicle aside from an initial struggle for the weapon.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: NotMoose

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

A grand jury doesn't deliver justice, only indictments.

"Justice" is served by a verdict in a trial. Who doesn't want to see it go to trial? Those that want to deny justice.

By the way, welcome to ATS.

A grand jury decision is part of the judicial system = justice served. A jury trial is not the only justice I hope you know. If you have any questions on or about the judicial system is or what its composed of just follow this link
google.com

Welcome to the real world

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Annee

According to the sources I listed in my posts. Among others.

www.dailykos.com...

www.bostonglobe.com...

www.washingtonpost.com... d3e984_story.html

Well...let's see here.....probable cause as defined in your first link is:

Probable cause is defined as a reasonable belief that an individual has, is, or will commit a crime. This belief must be based on facts, not a hunch or suspicion. To determine if there was probable cause, the court must find that a person with reasonable intelligence would believe that a crime was being committed under the same circumstances. Probable cause requires stronger evidence than reasonable suspicion.

Wilson stated he put two and two together when he saw the cigars and confronted Brown by pulling up next to them and attempting to get out of the car twice only to have the door slammed shut and was then assaulted. Probable cause 1 and 2 (2 being that he, at this point, knows Brown was the one that strong arm robbed the store)

Probably cause 3 is Brown attempting to bum rush the officer after he has just assaulted him and was refusing an order to stop. At this point Wilson knew Browns strength and intention from the assault seconds before and had probable cause to shoot him.


Now, as far as inconsistencies, there is only one big one that sticks out in my head. These guys say he went back to the station , bagged his gun and washed up. My problem here is that in the GJ statement he says:

"After that I walked to my car and I put my gun up" on pg 235 of the GJ testimony. He then goes on to say that he got in his sergeants vehicle and left, but never mentions getting his gun back from his vehicle.

So....that is the only truly missing piece of testimony I could find in this.

The forensics are pretty open and shut for me.....evidence is there as are the pics.....Wilson could not have planted the blood/tissue on the inside of the vehicle as you can see where the bullet went into the door, there is blood and tissue all around that from Brown.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

The evidence doesn't prove that Wilson WAS NOT the aggressor, or that Brown didn't grab the gun to avert it from his person.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Annee

According to the sources I listed in my posts. Among others.

www.dailykos.com...

www.bostonglobe.com...

Unorthodox police procedures emerge in grand jury documents

Why are those credible legitimate sources?

Do you have an opposing forensic expert?

a reply to: windword

I'm sorry, but if I see a police officer attempt to draw his weapon on me, the LAST thing on my mind would be "I HAVE TO GRAB THAT GUN".

My hands would be in the air faster than inevitable load that drops into my underoos.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Vasa Croe

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.

"Browns blood inside the car" doesn't put Brown "inside" the car. Are you making that up?

…the relevant witness statements written by Mark Sumner, it appears that the initial aggressor in the conflict was Wilson who multiple witnesses stated nearly hit Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson with his car, and then actually did hit them with the car door as he opened it, which then bounced back onto him. He then reached through the window and grabbed onto Brown by the shirt and throat.

Did you look at the pictures I posted links to? No I don't make things up.....the pictures show blood, tissue and a bullet hole with both around it because when the bullet "skimmed" Brown's hand INSIDE the vehicle it carried his blood and tissue with it into the door.

Here is the pic.....notice the blood and tissue "spray" on the door and the blood drop on the armrest and the blood around the hole from the bullet? So, please let me know how all of this got there if Brown was not partially inside the car?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

The evidence doesn't prove that Wilson WAS NOT the aggressor, or that Brown didn't grab the gun to avert it from his person.

The prior robbery by Brown with video, proves that Brown was an aggressor though. But I guess he could have changed his behavior in a matter of a few minutes and become very passive right?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

The forensics are pretty open and shut for me

That's clearly understood.

The way I look at threads like these is as if we were sitting on the same jury, like on TV or in the movies!

Some of us are going to disagree on the evidence and what it means. But, it's fun serving on the ATS jury, and I can smoke and eat and stuff!

Well...let's see here.....probably cause as defined in your first link is:

This is where my introduction of "Probable Cause" came from.

"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...

"

The Grand Jury found no evidence to support "Probable Cause" to indict Wilson on the question of whether he DO NOT acted in self defense. Not that there was proof that he DID act in self defense.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Right. We have to make Mike Brown a robber, a thug, a violent criminal, an angry demonic monster the size of Hulk Hogan in order to convince the GJ that Wilson WAS in fear of his life. A man who, after he'd been shot was still gathering strength to charge Wilson like a wild bull, bowl Wilson over like a lineman, and thus, needed to be executed by 2 shots to his head!

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: windword

I'm sorry, but if I see a police officer attempt to draw his weapon on me, the LAST thing on my mind would be "I HAVE TO GRAB THAT GUN".

My hands would be in the air faster than inevitable load that drops into my underoos.

Maybe not, if the cop had just pulled you in by your shirt collar and pulled his gun and pointed it at your face. Your hands might try to push it away.

If Brown was pulled off balance, he may have appeared to fall into the officer, his hands breaking his fall on the cops face.

a reply to: windword

We don't need to make him anything. The previous robbery and the video evidence of it show that Brown, in the minutes before his altercation with Wilson, had acted VERY aggressively toward someone, and robbed him. I'm sorry that you think we're "painting" Brown in a bad light, but truthfully, he did that all by himself.

a reply to: windword

If Brown was pulled off balance, he may have appeared to fall into the officer, his hands breaking his fall on the cops face.

Okay that genuinely make me laugh out loud. "I'm sorry sir, I was just breaking my fall on your FACE."

C'mon, now. You're trying to make it seem like Office Darren "Grand Wizard of the KKK" Wilson got dressed that day and set out to kill him a black guy.

questions....
1...why would officer Wilson leave the scene after killing brown?
2...why would the forensics person NOT check for good camera batteries, or not carry spares?
3...why didn't officer Wilson not immediately contact a supervising officer or a superior for direction?
4...since all patrol cars have radio communications inside, why weren't they used for advisement and/or help?
5...if he went back to the "station" to wash off his hands, nobody at that time stopped him or spoke to him?