The air tight case against Michael Brown and opinions

All right, let's chill for a minute. This is not stuff people are expected to be experts on. This is mostly stuff people need to be educated about.

I've known Hairball for a while, on other forums. He's not stupid. So, let's just refrain from being *ssholes, and give each other some slack.

When it comes to police investigations, the evidence is of paramount importance. (Not so much the safety of the officers, even though that's important too - but it's the evidence that can't be replaced and must be captured accurately and preserved the first time or it'll be lost forever).

So, let's begin even before Darren Wilson showed up at the police station with blood on his hands. Let's begin when the medical investigator arrived at the scene, and decided not to photograph Darren Wilson. Why did that happen? This is an officer involved shooting, so how does a medical investigator get to make the command decision to bypass the accurate capture and preservation of the evidence?

There is the very flimsy excuse that the camera wasn't working because the batteries were dead. Yeah really? REALLY? For real? There's like fifty cops standing around, and every single one of 'em has a cell phone, you couldn't have taken just one teeny tiny picture for the record? If the batteries were dying you couldn't have uploaded ONE photograph into the cloud someplace just so it wouldn't get lost? I'm sorry but something about that just doesn't ring true.

What it sounds MORE like is that the medical investigator took the pictures, then showed them immediately to the police commander, who then decided after the fact that man's batteries were dead and he had not in fact taken any pictures (oops).

Whoever this commander personality was (and I'm still trying to determine that, how the orders were coming down), he's the one we should probably put under the microscope at this point.

 

What an ignorant statement. He wasn't receiving a penalty. He was attacking a cop who defended himself.

 

This is why you guys are not cops and not experts. You are leaving out the most crucial part. WE KNOW WILSON KILLED BROWN! It's not a question whose blood it is! Blood was on the inside of the vehicle and on his uniform that got tested. The blood on his hands doesn't matter and isn't part of the investigation. Whose blood was it going to be? Jodie Fosters? What possible relevance to the case would some blood on WIlson's hands be besides further proof to the gun shot inside the vehicle that we already KNOW happened?

 

Before any evidence came out, you already chose with no evidence that Wilson was guilty.
with out knowing the evidence, what was it based on then? RACE, so what does this tell all of
us on this forum about YOU????

My case rests.


....

 

How long does it take you to "stumble" 25 feet? The blood trail extends 25 feet past Brown's body and Brown died about 10 feet from WIlson's last shots. Brown was coming at WIlson and closed almost the entire distance before finally being shot in the head.

 

and

and

and

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370562-14-43984-care-main.html

I wonder how many pro Wilson witnesses we are not hearing from.

 

Quicktrip in ferguson August 11th via Roche Madden's twitter account a Fox 2 St Louis reporter.

 

I disagree.

Common sense dictates that you clean it off ASAP. The longer it is on you the more likely it is that you will get infected. And there's also the grossness factor.

 

I seem to remember you making the same claims about Zimmerman. You were proven wrong then and are still wrong now.

 

Do you have any evidence that the Ferguson police "procedures" were written by the most qualified medical doctors? If not, those alleged procedures are totally irrelevant to the subject of whether or not it is prudent to clean possibly infectious blood off of your skin.

Those of us who are not totally ignorant of biology know that you should get potentially infectious blood off of your skin ASAP to minimize the chances of being infected with a communicable disease.

THINK!

 

A "tickle fight"????

Why the hell would a cop and a robber get into a "tickle fight" in broad daylight in the middle of the street?

Do you even realize how absurd your theory is?

It puts a new meaning to being way out there in left field.

 

Most likely it was because he was either not smart enough, or too intimidated to immediately go to the ER.

Or perhaps he just couldn't think straight because a 290+ pound gorilla just bashed him in the head. Physical trauma to the brain box can cause all kinds of problems.

 

No. You haven't read the evidence.

He was about to be interviewed when a senior Lt Col at the Ferguson PD decided he needed to go to the hospital first.

The investigator said his injuries didn't appear bad enough to warrant a medical examination, and Darren Wilson himself testified that he didn't want to go to the hospital.

The hospital pictures clearly shown a large contusion on the right hand side of the face. What the hospital pictures do not show is an orbital fracture.

The purpose of a medical examination is not to save the officer's life or make him healthy again, the purpose is to collect evidence. So clearly, someone high up in the Ferguson PD decided that he needed some evidence collected.

Or, I should just say, he needed some evidence. Whether he "collected" it or not is an open question.

 

Are you a radiologist? Or are you spewing more idiotic BS to troll the forum?

 

Another ridiculous lie and obvious logical fallacy.

 

Again the cops never claimed there was an orbital fracture. That claim came from a random blogger some where or another that one or two major news outlets ran with before discovering that it was bs. Now It was two hours before he was sent to the ER because the cops had to take his statement and he had to remain at the scene to protect it from people who might want to mess with it until the forensics team could get there. The trip to the hospital was almost certainly an after thought almost certainly related to all the publicity concussions have gotten lately. That plus discoloration from bruising can take a little bit to show up.

 

That is absolutely hilarious.

When internet trolls take over the world that blogger is going to be considered one of the founding fathers.

 

Very good point.

It takes time for contusions to turn black and blue.

 

This DA should have taken himself off this case. He acted more like a defense attorney for Officer Wilson than a Fair and impartial DA. This whole Grand Jury proceeding was nothing but a sham.

 

So as far as you are concerned the evidence doesn't matter.

 

I'm not an MD. However I have two years of medical school under my belt, and I also have some professional credentials related to physical security.

I can read an x-ray, if that's what you're asking.

And, I don't claim to be an "expert" on this, I'm all the way out here in Los Angeles and I haven't seen any of the evidence first hand.

See, here's the thing, Hairball: this Grand Jury should never have happened. I'm still trying to backtrack to find out exactly why this Grand Jury happened and who authorized it, the best I can find so far is that it was the leftists and protesters who were asking for it, because they didn't trust the prosecutor.

But the Grand Jury was the wrong mechanism in this case. The Grand Jury proceeding assumes that the prosecutor wants the conviction, and the purpose of the Grand Jury is to deny it to him if there's insufficient evidence. Whereas, the exact opposite was true in this case, the prosecutor didn't want the conviction, and used the Grand Jury as a platform to justify his position. And the Grand Jury is useless in that contex, it's not going to work and it's not going to provide the desired level of robustness or accuracy. This Ferguson thing was an abuse of the Grand Jury, they never should have used a Grand Jury for this purpose. What the governor should have done from the git-go is assigned a special prosecutor to the case. He has that power and that authority, and I find myself wondering why that didn't happen, because Nixon is a Democrat and he should have been getting guidance from Holder et al on this point.

So, "because" it was a secret Grand Jury, we are now not allowed to see some of the evidence, and make no mistake, this case is being tried in public. The best thing anyone could do at this point is release all the information, 100% of it. Even if there's a racist witness who was making blatanly inflammatory racist remarks that the prosecutor thought he'd rather withhold because they were too inflammatory - even that should be in the public view at this point.

But all this assumes that our government is really interested in ensuring justice for Michael Brown.

And, I'm getting the increasing feeling that this may not be the case. It seems to me that our government is (at least in part) "using" this tragic Michael Brown case as a testbed for the monitoring and tracking of "undesirable elements" like anarchist protesters and Oath Keepers and etc. It seems to me at this point that our government is a lot more interested in exploring the capabilities and limits of its new technology, rather than in ensuring justice for Michael Brown.

And that part of this, I don't like. Not at all. I'm not sure what to "do" about it, except to note and acknowledge that it's happening, and to keep an eye on how it's being handled and what future ramifications there might be.

'Cause I mean, if you think our government is repressive "now", just wait till you see what happens when they have better technology available. At that point a lot of the "loopholes" will be closed (meaning, freedoms taken away), and all the stuff people are complaining about now will fade into insignificance.

Keep your eye on the bigger picture here, it's important.

 

Ok, acknowledged. Thank you for clearing up this point.

 

Well, not a "sham" exactly, it was just the wrong mechanism to use, to get to the truth and to get justice in this case.

A Grand Jury is always a political event, involving a prosecutor who most likely has some career ambitions. (Most do). In retrospect I have to agree that the prosecutor should have recused himself from this case, and handed the whole thing over to Missouri state officials.

 

Wrong on every count. One, there was as I understand it a grand jury already in session. Depending on Jurisdiction a grand jury has a set beginning and end and may get involved in more than one possible criminal case. That appears to be the case here. Two, the only reason this even went as far as a grand jury was all the political pressure involved. The forensic evidence at the scene was unmistakable and both it and many of the eye witnesses supported Officer Wilson's statement. Three, they went with an already empaneled grand jury because it was the quickest means of resolution of a case that was a slam dunk for the defense anyway.

 

Fully disagreed. No part of this reasoning was a rationale for the use of a Grand Jury in the Michael Brown case.

I will post chapter and verse on this, I'm still researching it so it'll take a minute, but I'll post the information because it's important.

It was the protesters who originally asked for the Grand Jury. That's a fact.

Otherwise, the prosecutor could have simply "declined to bring charges", which is what the minority community was worried about in the first place, because they didn't want Wilson to "get off scot free".