An inconvenient truth

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Photizo, Nov 29, 2014.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    You are being a more than a little disingenuous. The issue being discussed was your fixation with the bullet casings. The only place those casings are inconsistent with the forensics is between your ears. NO forensic scientist has said those shell casings were inconsistent with Officer Wilson’s account.
    What, you have not read anything? You have not understood anything? Johnson’s testimony which accused Officer Wilson of murder was clearly and demonstrably wrong. Johnson said, Brown was shot in the back. He wasn’t. As previously documented, Johnson’s testimony has changed over time and as the autopsy information was release. Johnson’s testimony is not only inconsistent with the forensics but with itself. Johnson clearly said he witnessed Brown get shot in the back. The forensics says otherwise. And after the forensics were released, Johnson changed is story in an attempt to comport with the forensics. You even have one witness who admitted to the grand jury he faked his testimony.

    Show me one credible forensic expert who backs your fixation and machination with the shell casings? Forensic experts have said the forensics is consistent with Officer Wilson’s testimony. And you keep ignoring them and pretending their opinion doesn’t exist. You have seen the forensic experts’ conclusions; you have just chosen to ignore them. There are none so blind and none as deaf as those who will not see and will not hear. That is you my friend.
    So you think Johnson’s false testimony and inconsistent testimony isn’t a problem? Well I think that speaks volumes about your positions and inability to view this issue objectively. As I have repeatedly said, you believe what you want to believe. It’s like trying to convert a religious zealot. It ain’t gonna happen, because this isn’t a rational discussion. You have a belief system that is inconsistent with reality. Facts don’t matter to you and that is why you keep ignoring them and inventing your own fiction.
    LOL, thanks for making my point again. Only you and those like you can take an article titled, “Why Michael Brown’s best friend’s story isn’t credible” and say it undermines my statements about Johnson’s credibility. I suggest you read that article again. You are just not capable of processing reality related to this matter. You have a very serious case of confirmation bias.

    Again, show me on forensic expert who agrees with your interpretations…just one.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Oh and where do you get that from? So you think President Obama and Eric Holder would allow a black man to be openly murdered on a street and not take any kind of action? The fact is the Brown shooting has been investigated by the State of Missouri, the FBI, the US Attorney General and they have not found any evidence of wrong doing. They have found Brown’s civil rights were not violated. So again, you are on the wrong side of the facts Ice.

    "The Justice Department is poised to declare that former police officer Darren Wilson should not face civil rights charges over the death of Michael Brown, law enforcement sources tell NPR. Wilson, who is white, shot and killed Brown, who was black, in August. Brown was not armed. In order for you to be believed, one would have to believe in a conspiracy that involved US Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama. And somehow, I don’t believe Attorney General Holder and President Obama are racists.

    Two law enforcement sources tell NPR they see no way forward to file criminal civil rights charges" against Wilson, NPR's Carrie Johnson reports. She adds, "Those charges would require authorities to prove the officer used excessive force and violated Brown's constitutional rights."
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    *Raises eyebrows*

    What do you mean by that statement?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, it wasn't. Making stuff up again. No such fixation exists, or appears, in reality. It's just one of the apparent inconsistencies I presented, not the most repeated or emphasized, and far from a "fixation".

    Which points to an interesting detail - You continue to ignore the one I have actually emphasized: the audio analysis of the location of the gunshots. That is the simplest and clearest one, and the most repeated and emphasized by me (because it is so simple and clear). It should be the first addressed by you.

    So? It's not their job. They present the physical evidence, not assessments of Wilson's account.

    That's what we needed a trial for. Denied a trial, we have the evidence in front of us to discuss as best we can. Why are you demanding that forensic analysts take on the job of evaluating Wilson's testimony? Why are you ignoring the physical evidence the forensic analysts present?

    Sure I have - you just don't like the verdict. It makes you look bad. You have been doing things like this:
    So you think enough time has passed that we will all forget the repeated handling of that specific issue - you can return to it,without ever acknowledging anything anyone has posted, and we are all supposed to start over explaining reality to you once again from scratch.

    See: I understand your posting.

    You mean those who like me who actually read the article, not just the title? Try reading it yourself. You may become one of us.

    Failing that, try dealing with the actual content of my post on that article - or failing that, try to say something that indicates you read my post.

    Of course. Dozens of examples. They have their reasons, and limitations - they don't run the DA's office in Ferguson, for example (although they are still looking into it, to the extent they have standing to do so). They are in the Federal government, Joe - you do realize that?

    Why didn't you just link to my post on that topic, with its more complete source?
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2015
  8. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    I guess that is why you keep dwelling on it, because you are not fixated with it. Again, what you think is “inconsistent” is only inconsistent between your ears. Again, show me one forensic expert who buys into your interpretation of the forensics. You can’t. I have shown you numerous articles showing the forensics are consistent with Officer Wilson’s account and the account of the 7 black witnesses whose account also corroborates Officer Wilson’s account.
    Again, there is nothing there but your imagination. Again, show me one forensic scientist who interprets the science they way you do…just one.
    Yeah, it is their job to collect and analyze the data. They make assessments.
    “What Forensic Science Technicians Do
    Forensic science technicians help investigate crimes by collecting and analyzing physical evidence. Many technicians specialize in either crime scene investigation or laboratory analysis. Most forensic science technicians spend some time writing reports.”
    I can point to forensic experts who back up Officer Wilson’s account. You cannot.
    You seem to have trouble understanding what a trial is and what a grand jury is. In order to go to court one needs probable cause. And probable cause does not exist in this case, for all the reasons you like to ignore. The grand jury reviewed the evidence and didn’t find probable cause. You don’t like it. So you invent this fiction. From day one you convicted Officer Wilson even before the investigation had been completed.
    I am not ignoring the evidence. I am the one who can show forensic scientist who share my opinion. You cannot. Let’s look at all the evidence I have to ignore to get to where you are at:
    I have to ignore the forensic evidence. I have to ignore the testimony of the 7 black witnesses who corroborate Officer Wilson’s account and whose testimony is consistent with the forensics and has not changed over time. I have to ignore Officer Wilson’s account which is consistent with the forensics and has not changed over time. And I have to accept as gospel, the testimony of witnesses who have made false testimony, one admitted as much in the presence of the grand jury. He stated his testimony changed in an attempt to keep it consistent with the physical evidence. I have to accept the testimony of these individuals as truthful even though there testimony is at odds with the forensics and have been not only inconsistent with the evidence but inconsistent with various versions they have told.
    No you don’t. For starters there is no verdict because there was no trial. I think that gets to your confusion related to grand juries. I am not the one disputing the results of the grand jury hearing, you are. Have you forgotten? The unpleasant fact for you is that contrary to Johnson’s claim, Brown wasn’t shot in the back. What you have done is invent stories to explain away Johnson’s inconsistencies and changing story. But you cannot explain away all the inconsistencies in errors of fact in Johnson’s testimony.
    Well if you think there was something inconsistent with the article’s title, it’s way past time to present it. Because I did read the article, apparently you haven’t or you are blinded by your confirmation biases and unable to recognize reality. I suggest you read the article again, this time more slowly and more carefully. That article clearly laid out the reasons why Johnson’s testimony wasn’t credible.
    How about posting something credible?
    So you think President Obama and Attorney General Holder would let a cop murder an innocent black man and do absolutely nothing? No, Obama and Holder don’t run the DA’s office in Ferguson. But they are responsible for civil rights enforcement. Have you forgotten?
    “Two law enforcement sources tell NPR they see no way forward to file criminal civil rights charges" against Wilson, NPR's Carrie Johnson reports. She adds, "Those charges would require authorities to prove the officer used excessive force and violated Brown's constitutional rights." NPR
    They aren’t looking into it. They are drafting their final report.
    Contrary to your opinion Obama and Holder are far from impotent. Federal charges could be filed, if they had sufficient evidence. And Obama could use the power of his office to call for a change if he felt it was warranted. Obama and Holder are far from impotent. They do have power.
    The unpleasant fact for you is this matter has been reviewed by the district attorney, a grand jury, the Missouri attorney general, and the US attorney general. The federal government also conducted an autopsy. They all share my opinion. You are the odd man out. So are you going to try to sell a grand conspiracy?
    If that is so, then you plainly didn’t understand what you posted. It wouldn’t be the first time.
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, you haven't.

    You have posted no articles - not even one, ever - that deal with the specific inconsistencies I have specifically mentioned, for example. And my list was not exhaustive. I cherrypicked the obvious, simple, clear items taken directly from the physical evidence and Wilson's grand jury testimony alone.

    I have not even begun to go through the rest of the physical evidence, Wilson's reported statements immediately after the killing, or the witness testimony both immediate and after grand jury rehearsal (nobody, for example, heard Wilson shouting at Brown to get down on the ground - loudly enough to be heard by a Brown far enough away to "charge" for seven seconds without reaching Wilson. Nobody saw Wilson backpedal quickly for six meters or more while firing. And so forth. The witness testimony, especially in what it does not contain, is supported by the physical evidence in exactly the areas in which Wilson's testimony is not).

    The problem is that you have mistaken assertion for argument. You have repeatedly asserted that no such inconsistencies exist, and you have repeatedly posted articles that make similar assertions, but assertions are not argument or evidence. You have never - not once, ever - even begun to discuss the few and simple and specific inconsistencies I have listed right here, let alone the dozen or more matters a trial lawyer would have at hand during cross-examination of such an unreliable witness telling such a dubious story.

    I presented a couple of the more obvious, simple problems right there, in the post you are quoting. Is "immediately" fast enough for you?

    Of course. A well known and frequent event, in the US. Are you unaware of this problem?

    The Feds are still looking into the behavior of the Ferguson police department over the past several years, in light of the issues revealed by its handling of the Wilson case and the information obtained through interviews etc.

    They don't, apparently. And that is not surprising, if you read my link detailing what that evidence would have to prove. Based on what I have seen, I agree that no Federal charges of civil rights violation are supported against Wilson, personally, in this incident. So?
    No, they don't. Your opinion is that Wilson has been found innocent of serious wrongdoing in his killing of Brown, and that there are no inconsistencies between Wilson's testimony and the physical evidence None of those people except possibly the DA involved or the Missouri attorney general - who are suspects in the case, not disinterested parties - have stated anything of the kind.

    It doesn't matter whether I understood it - it was a clearer and more complete source of the relevant law and so forth. Instead you went with a partial and unclear explication, which you presented as if it were news to me. Why?
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2015
  10. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    joepistole likes this.
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    I suggest you go back and read.
    That is like asking someone to prove a negative. Not one credible forensic scientist has shared your concerns over these “inconsistencies” you like to rail on and on about. As I have already explained to you, your ignorance of guns doesn’t make you a very credible expert on the shell casing which so trouble you. I’ll repeat myself again, show me one credible forensic scientist who shares your interpretation…just one.
    Well, it is probably good you haven’t begun to go through the rest of the physical evidence because you are not a forensic expert and are driven more by confirmation bias than science. The fact is, per previously provided material, forensic scientists have said the forensics support Officer Wilson’s account and the account of the 7 black witnesses who also corroborate Officer Wilson’s account. And unlike the witnesses you support and defend, Officer Wilson and the 7 black witnesses haven’t changed their account to match the evidence.
    Well they don’t. You are not a forensic scientist and are in disagreement with forensic scientists. That is a fact Ice. It really isn’t that difficult. I’ll say it again, show me one forensic scientist who shares your assertions about the forensics.
    Oh, then where are they? The article in question was titled; “Why Michael Brown’s best friend’s story isn’t credible” didn’t support its title. Your machinations above were not in the article. So what is it in the article you think is not consistent with its title.
    Ok, you believe President Obama and Attorney General Holder would allow an innocent black man to be willfully deprived of his civil rights. There is a perceived problem with law enforcement by folks such as you and then there is a real problem with law enforcement. There are bad cops; there have always been bad cops. But that doesn’t mean all cops are bad cops, nor does it mean Officer Wilson was a bad cop or acted inappropriately.
    Per the previously referenced material, they are not looking into this incident. They are just drawing up the final draft. They are still looking at the Ferguson Police Department for possible racially discriminatory practices. And I think that is what the Wilson case boils down to. People like you want to blame Officer Wilson for perceived past discriminatory practices. I don’t know if the Ferguson Police Department is guilty or not. I will wait for the Justice Department to complete its investigation. If they find the allegations are correct, then there should be retribution and remedial actions should be taken. But that doesn’t mean Officer Wilson is guilty of anything other than defending himself.
    Now that is interesting. So you don’t feel Brown’s civil rights were violated? You agree with the Department of Justice? That is a contradiction. Your whole thesis here is that Wilson was a racist who murdered an innocent black man on the streets of Ferguson.
    Yeah they have. If the DA believed you tale, he would be compelled to file charges against Officer Wilson. If the Missouri State Attorney General felt Officer Wilson was guilty, he too would be compelled to prosecute Officer Wilson. If the Governor of Missouri felt Officer Wilson was guilty he too would be compelled to ensure Officer Wilson was charged and tried. And that is certainly true of the US Department of Justice too. So you believe the Missouri Attorney General, and the DA are suspects? And you have evidence of this or are you just blowing smoke?

    My opinion is that there is no credible evidence Officer Wilson did anything wrong, and the grand jury who investigated the issue agreed. The DA agreed, as he didn’t file charges, nor did the State Attorney General, or the US Department of Justice. You are the odd man out.
    Well, you go on thinking that. It’s pretty apparent Ice you don’t understand the material you post.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, I'm not. I have been posting the findings of forensic scientists, and insisting that you pay attention to them - how is that "disagreement"?
    Since like any US officials of the past two hundred years they have already done that, dozens if not hundreds of time, it's not much of a stretch to "believe".

    And your attempt to deflect things by throwing in "innocent" where it does not apply is noted. A common tactic of a certain crowd, it is not an admirable one. Brown's innocence or guilt is irrelevant.
    No, we don't.
    All of those assertions are false. Mere personal belief does not compel any such actions, by any of those people. Also, the Governor and the Feds have no such powers.
    As you have refused to acknowledge even the existence of several items of simple physical evidence, and you have refused several times to address them or their implications, your opinions about them are worthless.
    No, they didn't.

    You are making a great many simple errors of fact - more than one per post, on average.
    Now as I pointed out above, that is possible (although failure to file charges doesn't show it). The Ferguson prosecutor has a history that suggests racial bigotry governs his worldview, and such a warping of his judgment could lead to him agreeing with you despite what to objective analysis is obvious physical fact - although one would prefer a quote or some other indication of such a belief.

    He might even have been delusional enough to not recognize that he was rigging the grand jury hearing - it's possible. Now the normal motive for rigging a hearing like that would be to protect someone who is at risk - not someone against whom there is no credible evidence. So the way the hearing was biased and manipulated seems to indicate that the prosecutor thought there was some dangerous evidence against Wilson. But that is speculative - you are quite correct, that incompetent bigot might be in full agreement with you.

    The rest of your list would have nothing to do with the existence of credible evidence.

    I do feel that Brown's civil rights (to equal treatment under the law, among others) were violated, and that race was a central factor in the violation. I also agree (after reading the law and its burden of proof) with the Justice decision that this could not be demonstrated in court to the satisfaction of that law as written, and there is no point in trying. Where is the contradiction?
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2015
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    The contradiction only arises if one presupposes that statute = justice.
  14. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Somewhere there may be a universe in which Al Sharpton's many character flaws indicate that the police officers of Ferguson are by presumption justified in shooting badly behaved black people.

    That universe is far from this forum.

    Now if Wilson had shot the guy who keeps putting Sharpton on national TV for the supposed value of his opinions, we might be getting closer -but that guy is white, isn't he. Wilson is not going to shoot him, for anything.
  16. wellwisher Banned Banned

    The data says that 90% of the murders of black men, occur at the hands of other black men. The police account for the about the other 10%. The discussion does not address the main problem, at all, but places all the weight on the 10% aspect. If is like saying you have a broken finger and a broken leg. Instead of setting priority based on severity, we will fixate on the broken finger and ignore the leg, as though fixing the finger we bring about full health. Even if the cops reach perfect, there is still the 90% that is emboldened; does not go down but will go up. They will terrorize the innocent blacks.

    This is either run by morons or is it is run by calculated people who are working hard to avoid dealing with the real problem. If we address the 90% leadership will come into question. If you blame the finger as the source of the pain, this creates a smoke screen. Since the blacks and liberals seem to fall for this finger scam so easily, and ignore the leg, it reinforces certain certain stereo-types in the minds of rational people. This division is needed to maintain the scam leadership, who help themselves more then the people they say they represent. What moron keeps a poor leader in the limelight when nothing seems to change except his bank account? Fixing the finger never seems to stop the pain in the leg, like promised.
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    And you think that makes sense? If you do that speaks volumes. Just because x% (actually 93%) of blacks are killed by other blacks, it doesn't mean other racial groups are entitled to kill the other 7%. There isn't a hunting season on blacks, and police departments and other racial groups aren't entitled to kill the remaining 7%. By the way, 84% of white people are killed by white people. An unjustified homicide is an unjustified homicide regardless of the race of the murder and victim. People are not entitled to kill others based on race. It really is that simple. Race is immaterial. But unfortunately for people like you race is material.
  18. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    I don't think you can ignore race. Race is material. As I observe the world around me, there are discernible differences of behavior etc between human beings. These differences in behavior are, in many cases, according to skin color. Skin color is probably not the defining/determining factor; it may merely serve as an 'identifier' or marker indicating the likelihood of encountering predictable shared traits/behaviors/attitudes etc among a larger group stemming from deep within soulish/immaterial/spiritual aspects which are beyond our reach as humans to understand. Imagine if there was something about our inner immaterial selves that gave rise to the outward expression of who we are other words a particular kind of spirit or soul actually effected the body--imparting an energy or whatever--in such a way as to produce the observable physical/behavioral expressions/differences we are all familiar with. Yet despite these differences in spirit/soul leading to the physical manifestations, there are universally shared spiritual/soulish appreciations of common understandings/joys of what it means to be human. We can't escape noticing these things and they will not go away. Our insecurities about one another and ourselves push in us into denial/dishonesty about these matters. The recognition of our differences is not a bad thing, and ideally should lead us into corporately serving one another in accordance with our abilities/talents etc. for the mutual benefit of all humanity.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I don't think that's useful, here. The fact that we observe behaviors such as Wilson's apparently panicky manslaughter almost exclusively among sociologically "white race" men is, I believe, a coincidence brought about by the predominance of sociological "white" men among the poorly trained and underprepared bigot fraction of the police officers in the US.
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Says the pot to the kettle. You need to check your biases too.
    Photizo likes this.
  21. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    The Department of Justice absolves Officer Wilson for all the reasons I have enumerated in this thread.

    "The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson after Brown turned around were in self-defense and thus were not objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The physical evidence establishes that after he ran about 180 feet away from the SUV, Brown turned and faced Wilson, then moved toward Wilson until Wilson finally shot him in the head and killed him. According to Wilson, Brown balled or clenched his fists and "charged" forward, ignoring commands to stop. Knowing that Brown was much larger than him and that he had previously attempted to overpower him and take his gun, Wilson stated that he feared for his safety and fired at Brown. Again, even Witness 101’s account supports this perception. Brown then reached toward his waistband, causing Wilson to fear that Brown was reaching for a weapon. Wilson stated that he continued to fear for his safety at this point and fired at Brown again. Wilson finally shot Brown in the head as he was falling or lunging forward, after which Brown immediately fell to the ground. Wilson did not fire any additional shots. Wilson’s version of events is corroborated by the physical evidence that indicates that Brown moved forward toward Wilson after he ran from the SUV, by the fact that Brown went to the ground with his left hand at (although not inside) his waistband, and by credible eyewitness accounts.
    Wilson’s version is further supported by disinterested eyewitnesses Witness 102, Witness 104, Witness 105, Witness 108, and Witness 109, among others. These witnesses all agree that Brown ran or charged toward Wilson and that Wilson shot at Brown only as Brown moved toward him. Although some of the witnesses stated that Brown briefly had his hands up or out at about waist-level, none of these witnesses perceived Brown to be attempting to surrender at any point when Wilson fired upon him. To the contrary, several of these witnesses stated that they would have felt threatened by Brown and would have responded in the same way Wilson did. For example, Witness 104 stated that as Wilson ran after Brown yelling "stop, stop, stop," Brown finally turned around and raised his hands "for a second." However, Brown then immediately balled his hands into fists and "charged" at Wilson in a "tackle run." Witness 104 stated that Wilson fired only when Brown moved toward him and that she "would have fired sooner." Likewise, Witness 105 stated that Brown turned around and put his hands up "for a brief moment," then refused a command from Wilson to "get down" and instead put his hands "in running position" and started running toward Wilson. Witness 105 stated that Wilson shot at Brown only when Brown was moving toward him. These witnesses’ accounts are consistent with prior statements they have given, consistent with the forensic and physical evidence, and consistent with each other’s accounts. Accordingly, we conclude that these accounts are credible.

    Furthermore, there are no witnesses who could testify credibly that Wilson shot Brown while Brown was clearly attempting to surrender. The accounts of the witnesses who have claimed that Brown raised his hands above his head to surrender and said "I don’t have a gun," or "okay, okay, okay" are inconsistent with the physical evidence or can be challenged in other material ways, and thus cannot be relied upon to form the foundation of a federal prosecution.28 The two most prominent witnesses who have stated that Brown was shot with his hands up in surrender are Witness 101 and Witness 127, both of whom claim that Brown turned around with his hands raised in surrender, that he never reached for his waistband, that he never moved forward toward Wilson after turning to face him with his hands up, and that he fell to the ground with his hands raised. These and other aspects of their statements are contradicted by the physical evidence. Crime scene photographs establish that Brown fell to the ground with his left hand at his waistband and his right hand at his side. Brown’s blood in the roadway demonstrates that Brown came forward at least 21.6 feet from the time he turned around toward Wilson. Other aspects of the accounts of Witness 101 and Witness 127 would render them not credible in a prosecution of Wilson, namely their accounts of what happened at the SUV. Both claim that Wilson fired the first shot out the SUV window, Witness 101 claims that the shot hit Brown at close range in the torso, and both claim that Brown did not reach inside the vehicle. These claims are irreconcilable with the bullet in the SUV door, the close-range wound to Brown’s hand, Brown’s DNA inside Wilson’s car and on his gun, and the injuries to Wilson’s face.

    Other witnesses who have suggested that Brown was shot with his hands up in surrender have either recanted their statements, such as Witnesses 119 and 125, provided inconsistent statements, such as Witness 124, or have provided accounts that are verifiably untrue, such as Witnesses 121, 139, and 132. Witness 122 recanted significant portions of his statement by acknowledging that he was not in a position to see what either Brown or Wilson were doing, and who falsely insisted that three police officers pursued Brown and that the shooter was heavy set (in contrast to the slimly-built Wilson). Similar to Witness 128, Witness 122 told Brown’s family that Brown had been shot execution-style. Witness 120 initially told law enforcement that he saw Brown shot at point-blank range as he was on his knees with his hands up. Similar to Witness 138, Witness 120 subsequently acknowledged that he did not see Brown get shot but "assumed" he had been executed while on his knees with his hands up based on "common sense" and what others "in the community told [him.]" There is no witness who has stated that Brown had his hands up in surrender whose statement is otherwise consistent with the physical evidence. For example, some witnesses say that Wilson only fired his weapon out of the SUV,
    (e.g. Witnesses 128, 101, and 127) or that Wilson stood next to the SUV and killed Brown right there (e.g. Witnesses 139, 132, 120). Some witnesses insist that Wilson shot Brown in the back as he lay on the ground. (e.g. Witnesses 128 and 139). Some witnesses say that Wilson shot Brown and he went to the ground immediately upon turning to face Wilson. (e.g. Witnesses 138, 101, 118, and 127). Some say Wilson went to the ground with his hands raised at right angles.
    (e.g. Witnesses 138, 118, and 121). Again, all of these statements are contradicted by the physical and forensic evidence, which also undermines the credibility of their accounts of other aspects of the incident"
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, they didn't.

    They did not absolve Wilson, and their reasons for not charging him are not "all the reasons" you have been "enumerating" in this thread.

    Their major area of agreement with you is that the eyewitness testimony that does not directly contradict Wilson also is not contradicted by the forensic evidence, and that the credibility of the testimony of the eyewitnesses who did directly contradict Wilson was damaged by their also - in other respects - contradicting forensic evidence. But that was agreed by everyone here from the beginning, so the disagreements you have been having here are not affected by this report.

Share This Page