Reply With Quote
I posted about Brown's DNA on the gun way back, I'm not going to dig around in the various threads through thousands of posts to find it but its there.
My source is saying that the Feds are the ones leaking new evidence, not anyone local. It has also been leaked by the Feds no civil charges either. Ferguson is about to burn.
I posted about Brown's DNA on the gun way back, I'm not going to dig around in the various threads through thousands of posts to find it but its there.
But Melinek told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Wednesday that her comments had been taken "out of context" and that she believed the findings could be explained by other scenarios as well.
"I made it very clear that we only have partial information here. We don't have the scene information. We don't have the police investigation. We don't have all the witness statements. And you can't interpret autopsy findings in a vacuum."
She and O'Donnell then walked through a variety of alternative situations in which the gunshot residue found on Brown's hand -- the key finding that suggested Brown had been reaching for Wilson's gun -- could have gotten there.
"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," Melinek. "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."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...+%28TPMNews%29
msnbc lol still pushing their race war agenda
... because white cops trolling for, baiting blacks IS a race war.
Has a black cop ever shot and killed a black teen?? I'm quite positive the answer is yes.
Yet....when that does happen the news world doesn't stop and do a live special in that town. It's just another story the media spends 3 minutes on....not 3 months like it is when a white cop kills a black teen.
You had nothing on chemicals after discharge, which is much more telling than DNA.
But there was nothing new except, except, except...
Can you quit acting like a know it all, like you already had all this Grand Jury evidence posted, because you CLEARly did NOT.
I'm just passing on the information I receive, which has been correct every, single, time.
Next up a no bill and no civil charges from Feds.
the media and their race baiting. Here is the Huffington Post le of the shooting involving Vonderitt Myers, in which he opened fire and attempted to kill an officer.
"St. Louis Cop Shot Black Teen 6 Times In Back Of Legs During Fatal Shooting: Family Autopsy"
Never would they put in the le "black teen shoots at St. Louis cop 3 times...."
So what the does this mean Mr. Intheknow?
Have you no shame?
You are so full of BS.
Actually I'm not. Sit back and watch.
http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/edu...ile_touch=true
I just get so mad at people like Al Sharpton...dude calls himself a man of God. LOL.....
He's the first to judge someone. He plays the race card every chance he gets. And it does nothing but throw gas on the already blazing fire.
White cops kill white teens....Black cops kill white teens...White teens kill White cops...Black teens kill Black cops...basically every combination of the two has happened. Yet...only the White cop kills black teen stories get any pub.
You presented all the information the grand jury heard, ahead of Wapo, and then you post an article on schools..
Either you are a liar, stupid as , or both.
I posted that article because it lended credence to the officer's side. You said you had already posted this info and that there was nothing new. I then illustrate all you did NOT post, and you give me an article on school preparation...
Seriously WTF...?
Last edited by pgardn; 10-26-2014 at 09:11 PM.
Hispanic wanna be cop kills black kid got even more.
The issue raised is the same. Cops treating blacks unfairly.
In my small anecdotal world I totally believe the sentence directly above because I have seen it so clearly displayed. But... When defending a possibly guilty man for a just cause overrides the truth, we have a possible OJ problem. And then a just cause is diminished. This is why guys like Sharpton actually do a diservice imo.
I did not say there was close range residue on Brown, I only said his DNA was found on the firearm, again, months before any of this came out. Happy? Go back and read what I've shared from the start of this if you really care, check the dates while you're doing it.
The article on the schools was to show you once again I'm not ing around. Wilson is about to be no billed and no civil charges will be brought by the Feds. It will all be announced when the first nasty storm hits, to prevent mass riots of course.
Any questions?
For the TL;DR crowd, here's a synopsis of the problems with the article written by Christine Byers and Blythe Bernhard for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
The Post-Dispatch says that the autopsy report supports Wilson's version of events. In fact, it supports the earlier eyewitness testimony at least as much as it does Wilson's.
The Post-Dispatch (and later, the Washington Post, which essentially reported on the the St. Louis reporting) claims that a forensic expert said the autopsy shows that Michael Brown was "going for his (Wilson's) gun." Except that's not what the expert said - at least not in anything she provided on the record. She told Lawrence O'Donnell that it was just as likely that Brown was trying to defend himself from being shot.
The Post-Dispatch quotes the expert saying that Michael Brown's was not in surrender posture when he was shot. She actually wrote that she can't say with reasonable certainty that his hands were up when he was shot in the right forearm.
The article claims the expert said the autopsy didn't support witnesses who said Michael Brown was shot while running away or with his hands up. She apparently said nothing of the sort.
The expert quoted has since told Lawrence O'Donnell that she was only asked if the autopsy report was consistent with Darren Wilson's version of events. She was not asked if it fit other scenarios, though there are eyewitness accounts that differ from Wilson's account.
Now, here's a deeper dive with links and quotes - but before we take a look at what Dr. Melinek told the Post-Dispatch - or to be more specific, what the Post-Dispatch chose to print - let's take a look at who Judy Melinek is and how she happens to come into this.
Judy Melinek is a California forensics expert who is frequently called upon as a consultant to interpret autopsy results. She has spent time as a medical examiner, and has written a book about her experiences. When I first read the article in the St. Louis paper, I was flabbergasted at the quotes attributed to her - and you'll see in the excerpts below that the reports presented them as actual quotes, not as paraphrases. I'm not a forensics expert but even I know the fact that someone's hand is near a gun when it goes off does not necessarily mean that they were "going for the gun."
All I could think was that either the expert was incredibly biased, or that there were details in the autopsy that didn't make it into the newspaper. Silly me - I entirely missed a third possibility - that the reporters made up quotes out of their own heads - but that appears to be exactly what happened.
As to how she got dragged into this whole thing, here's the explanation in Dr. Melinek's own words:
A reporter from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called me earlier this week, saying she had Michael Brown's official autopsy report as prepared by the St. Louis County Medical Examiner, and asking me if I would examine and analyze it from the perspective of a forensic pathologist with no official involvement in the Ferguson, Missouri shooting death.
I bring this up because earlier this afternoon, MSNBC's Joy Reid referred to Dr. Melinek as the doctor who performed the autopsy. Now, Reid is usually pretty on-point with the facts in her reporting, but this was a big oops. And if she's making it, you can be sure that others are definitely making the same mistake.It's not the first time that Dr. Melinek has opined on an autopsy performed on Michael Brown, either. Back in August after the family released the results of the second autopsy, performed by Dr. Michael Baden, Dr. Melinek wrote this about the tweaked autopsy sketch that went viral:
Even if Dr. Baden, a board-certified forensic pathologist, looked at photos of the injuries taken prior to the embalming, the orientation and quality of the photos taken by the technician would influence his interpretation of the findings. Autopsy means "see for yourself"—and there is no subs ute for seeing the undisturbed body for yourself if you are going to be offering opinions with legal ramifications.
It was difficult to reconcile the person who wrote that with the person who was quoted in Byers' and Bernhard's article. It's important to remember that Dr. Melinek was not offering an opinion with legal ramifications. Rather, she was offering an opinion to a reporter, whose reporting would help shape public opinion in a highly contentious court case. The reporters quoted her thus:
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.”
I read that yesterday morning and thought, "Wait, what? That's a pretty big leap."And indeed it is. If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, it means ... his hand was near the gun when it went off. We don't know why or how his hand got there. It's just as likely that he was trying to block the gun because he was afraid that Darren Wilson was about to kill him.
And, in fact, Melinek appeared on Lawrence O'Donnell's "The Last Word" last night to essentially call bull on what the Post-Dispatch said she said, and followed it up with the previously-linked post on her blog. According to the doctor, this is what she told the reporter from the newspaper (emphasis mine):
The graze wound on the right thumb is oriented upwards, indicating that the tip of the thumb is toward the weapon. The hand wound has gunpowder particles on microscopic examination, which suggests that it is a close-range wound. That means that Mr. Brown's hand would have been close to the barrel of the gun. Given the investigative report which says that the officer's weapon discharged during a struggle in the officer's car, this wound to the right thumb likely occurred at that time.
We all know that "close to the barrel of the gun" is the exact same thing as "going for the gun." Or not.But the reporters' ery doesn't end there. The article goes on:
Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up....
A sixth shot that hit the forearm traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm, which means Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said. That trajectory shows Brown probably was not taking a standard surrender position with arms above the shoulders and palms out when he was hit, she said.
The part I cut with the ... was a description of the wounds to Michael Brown's head, chest and torso. No one disagrees that those shots were fired when Michael Brown was facing Darren Wilson. It's that last paragraph that's a problem. Here's what Dr. Melinek actually had to say about that forearm wound:
You can't say within reasonable certainty that his hands were up based on the autopsy findings alone. The back to front and upward trajectory of the right forearm wound could occur in multiple orientations and a trajectory reconstruction would need to be done using the witness statements, casings, height of the weapon and other evidence from the scene, which have yet to be released.
Again, there's a big difference between "did not support witnesses" who said his hands were up and "can't say within reasonable certainty" that his hands were up -- when that shot hit him. That particular wound goes from back to front, which actually supports earlier eyewitness testimony that Wilson shot at Michael Brown while he was running away, and appeared to hit him. And again, Melinek corrected the Post-Dispatch's reporting when she spoke with O'Donnell last night (emphasis mine):
All but one of the gunshots, Melinek said, seem to have struck Brown in the front of his body, which is consistent with witnesses who said Brown had been facing Wilson when he was shot. Depending on any witnesses physical proximity to the shooting, Brown could have been turning to Wilson in surrender, stumbling toward him after being shot or charging him.The shot to the back of Brown’s upper arm, Melinek said, suggested he could have been shot from behind.
As of this writing, the story is still up and uncorrected at St. Louis Today. It's headed by the screen cap posted above, from WPIX News in New York. This is despite the fact that Dr. Melinek has disputed their story, saying it was full of "inaccurate and misleading quotes," and gone on television to correct the record. Frankly, I don't expect them to make the corrections. not do I expect the Washington Post or the various other newspapers, websites and blogs to do the right thing. You're going to hear that the autopsy proves Michael Brown was going for Darren Wilson's gun and that he didn't have his hands up. But at least you'll know where the misinformation came from and where you can find the correction.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/23/1338661/-The-Official-Michael-Brown-Autopsy-Report-Doesn-t-Say-What-the-St-Louis-Post-Dispatch-Says-It-Does?detail=email
nobody worry, the prosecutor will make sure the grand jury votes down a trial
and you right-wingers can continue uninterrupted in your conviction that "the only good n!gg@ is a dead n!gg@ (except if he's playing on the team(s) I support)"
No.
You are an idiot.
I got it.
Complete whiff on my beef with your antics.
These "witnesses" would have made great OJ Simpson trial jurors
My source says to stop acting so butthurt. You will now be left out of the loop on any future updates to the case.
Police In Ferguson Stock Up On Riot Gear Ahead Of Grand Jury Decision
The St. Louis County Police Department has stocked up on tear gas, less-lethal ammunition and plastic handcuffs in anticipation of massive protests in the suburb of Ferguson, Missouri, if a grand jury doesn't indict the police officer who killed 18-year-old Michael Brown. The jury is expected to reach its decision sometime in November.
Many protesters in Ferguson do not believe that Officer Darren Wilson will be indicted and contend that recent grand jury leaks are meant to prepare the public for that decision.
“It’s going to be a war because they’re not going to indict him,” one protester told The Huffington Post in October.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6062608.html
Even if indicted, he won't be convicted, so the riots are unavoidable.
So what you're saying is there is a bunch of stupid people in Ferguson?Police In Ferguson Stock Up On Riot Gear Ahead Of Grand Jury Decision
The St. Louis County Police Department has stocked up on tear gas, less-lethal ammunition and plastic handcuffs in anticipation of massive protests in the suburb of Ferguson, Missouri, if a grand jury doesn't indict the police officer who killed 18-year-old Michael Brown. The jury is expected to reach its decision sometime in November.
Many protesters in Ferguson do not believe that Officer Darren Wilson will be indicted and contend that recent grand jury leaks are meant to prepare the public for that decision.
“It’s going to be a war because they’re not going to indict him,” one protester told The Huffington Post in October.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6062608.html
Even if indicted, he won't be convicted, so the riots are unavoidable.
I didn't say that, but if the cops murdered one of YOUR people OVER AND OVER AND OVER and in the context of the cops OVER AND OVER AND OVER harassing and trolling YOUR people, would you be pissed?
Why an anal reference... A fixation of yours?
Fact: you said you had posted the evidence, the only thing new for you was black witnesses afraid to come forward.
Reality: there is a whole lot you never posted from your secret loop that the WAPO a article had.
So email your high level secret fantasy friends, I don't mind a bit missing out on your world of hallucinatory grandeur.
Fact: the only other thing I didn't post was the gun discharge on Brown, everything else had been posted before the WAPO article. I have no need to dig up my old posts to prove anything to you, go ahead and dig through my posts if you care so much. I can ask the three officers I've been communicating with to email you directly if you want a peek into my world of hallucinatory grandeur. I'm shooting with one this weekend at the range we are both members at, want me to have him call you directly so you're in the loop?
so TSA asks the Blue Wall about their brothers they ALWAYS lie to protect?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
