Brown Autopsy Report Leaked by NYT

a reply to: kruphix

GSR is not easy to wash off

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: xuenchen

of course he had pot in his system. He had stolen a fistful of cigarillo's.....

Special blend Swisher Sweets.

No wonder they had the value at $50.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The Federal Bureau of Investigation says otherwise:

Similar to hands, however, washing will remove most, if not all, residue from the clothing.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: xuenchen
opinions vary don't they.

In addition, Brown had marijuana in his system when he was shot and killed by a police officer on Aug. 9 in Ferguson, according to this person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.

County investigation: Michael Brown was shot from the front, had marijuana in his system

Rumors galore.

Oh, was he stoned? Given my experience with stoned people, the bum rush scenario is sounding a bit less plausible.

Could be.

Could be.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The Federal Bureau of Investigation says otherwise:

Similar to hands, however, washing will remove most, if not all, residue from the clothing.

This is my understanding of GSR as well.

However, GSR tests only prove so much and contamination is a risk if protocol isn't closely followed when obtaining samples. Also there are certain particles that can cause false positives. Here's an interesting read on GSR testing:

FBI — The Current Status of GSR Examinations

Reputable scientists always have reported that the finding of GSR cannot indicate the shooter, yet members of the media usually seem surprised to learn that. Nevertheless, GSR findings continue to add value simply because numerous population studies have shown that GSR is not normally found on the average person.3 In addition, exhaustive study into the search for false positive results has strengthened the opinion that SEM/ EDS particle analysis can attribute the source of certain particles to the discharge of a firearm.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
However, GSR tests only prove so much and contamination is a risk if protocol isn't closely followed when obtaining samples.

Absolutely correct. There are numerous instances of people being wrongly accused due to mishandling of samples, particularly the Baltimore Police Department where their 'lab' was a shipping container outside.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
Odd how for some people we mustn't rush to judgement, must give the benefit of the doubt etc etc. Until some evidence comesup that indicates Brown might be at fault, then it's clearly the stone cold truth.

It works both ways.
I have seen plenty of posts about how the police shot this 'child' in the back, but it really doesn't seem that this was the case.
I am all for waiting for a complete investigation to occur, it seems that there were a lot of people in Ferguson that didn't want to wait.

Maybe when you're going through the completed investigation you'll notice that the store in question is not in fact a QT but rather a Ferguson Market store. Just thought you should know, lest you not have all of your "facts" correct.

originally posted by: DexteramLucifer

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
Odd how for some people we mustn't rush to judgement, must give the benefit of the doubt etc etc. Until some evidence comesup that indicates Brown might be at fault, then it's clearly the stone cold truth.

It works both ways.
I have seen plenty of posts about how the police shot this 'child' in the back, but it really doesn't seem that this was the case.
I am all for waiting for a complete investigation to occur, it seems that there were a lot of people in Ferguson that didn't want to wait.

Maybe when you're going through the completed investigation you'll notice that the store in question is not in fact a QT but rather a Ferguson Market store. Just thought you should know, lest you not have all of your "facts" correct.

I

Police released still images and were planning to release video from the robbery, at a QuikTrip store in Ferguson. Jackson said Wilson, along with other officers, were called to the area after a 911 call reporting a "strong-arm robbery" at a nearby convenience store. He didn't immediately release details about the alleged robbery, saying more information would be released later.

Fox News

a reply to: butcherguy

That's why you need to check your sources of information for accuracy, because it was the Ferguson Market and Liquor Store where the video(and the stills thereof) was taken.

a reply to: butcherguy

I'm just pointing that out to you because this is how you get convoluted stories being floated around that do nothing but make people suspicious of either sides story simply because of faulty info.

originally posted by: j.r.c.b.
I can't help wondering why the police officer was focused on his right side. And, it does seem Brown IS facing the original officer. I'm assuming via video, the cop cars on the right are after the fact? Wonder if ANY of them had a dashcam???

If, as was claimed by some Facebook posts, as well as the radio caller, the officers' facial injuries were as severe as they claim, his eye was swollen shut. In fact, it was claimed, he also suffered a brain injury. The police statement also did say he suffered facial injuries with swelling.

The alleged posting by a nurse claimed he was admitted to the ICU under an assumed name for his protection, and not discharged until that following Tuesday, when he went home, packed up, and moved to a safe location.

The statement was made that even as of Tuesday, his eye was still swollen shut.

Now, the reason I post this is because, we have 3 dimensional vision when we have binocular vision. Ie: two eyes open.

Without two eyes open, we lose depth perception. If the officer was firing with one eye obscured, either by swelling, or blood, he would be shooting without depth perception, in a two dimensional perception.

Try a simple experiment. Focus on a stationary object at different distances in the room you are in. Cover one eye, then the other. You will notice the object seems to "jump" from one side, to the other.

Now, if you are so inclined, while NOT driving, perhaps as a passenger, or standing by a road, perform this exact experiment while watching moving objects, such as a car, or people walking by.

The point being, if a persons' vision is obscured, turning their vision from binocular to onocular, loss of depth perception would also explain shooting skewed to one side.

If the shooter was able to determine the bullets were striking off target, he would be able to 'track' the shots towards center mass as he fired, which is where police are trained to shoot.

This is a very viable explanation.

People can be trained to function with onocular vision, but it takes time.

ETA - The police department has already stated they don't have dash cams. They have been purchased, but not installed.

a reply to: butcherguy

Lol so since fox news says it, it has to be true.
apps.washingtonpost.com...

Read this and you can see how he could not have robbed the quiktrip and then walk towards it.
Now if we are talking the market, it makes complete sense in the time line of events

a reply to: DexteramLucifer

i am suspicious of the side that releases no info in this case. They have all the info, and just don't seem to want to share any of it.

Which, to me, says "guilty conscience".

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: butcherguy

Lol so since fox news says it, it has to be true.
apps.washingtonpost.com...

Read this and you can see how he could not have robbed the quiktrip and then walk towards it.
Now if we are talking the market, it makes complete sense in the time line of events

It is true that he did not rob the QT, but the other store. Even the community thought it was the QT, which was why it was targetted the first night and burned down.

The day the video of the burglary came out, you will note the looters robbed and looted that other store, after a night of peace the night before.

Police stood by and did nothing, and allowed the looting, up and until the looters then attempted to burn that store down.

That led to the teargassing that restarted the issues again, Friday night.

It was community led vengeance, because they blame the clerk for calling 911, for Michael's death.

They originally thought it was the QT, and even the police wrongly released that information. Which was stunning.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DexteramLucifer

i am suspicious of the side that releases no info in this case. They have all the info, and just don't seem to want to share any of it.

Which, to me, says "guilty conscience".

No. It says, "Open investigation."

a reply to: Libertygal
I did think that, I was afraid his eye was banged up, I didn't know about the brain injury or the ICU. Geez, bet he took a hard hit to the head by Brown. His ears must have been ringing too. Thanks for the extra info. I hope the cop & his family can stay safe & in seclusion while all this is going on. I don't agree with the release of his photo. Not in this type of situation....

a reply to: Libertygal

While this may be a matter of perspective/opinion....the prevailing opinion seems to be that it was handled poorly.

Even the second ME criticized them for not releasing mundane information.

It may be an "open investigation"....but the lessons learned in prior riots in the US were obviously ignored.

a reply to: j.r.c.b.
Considering the lack of release of information, it was likely that even the officer was unable to be questioned on his side until he was able to respond, while not under the influence of pain medications.

One can be assured that he was given an attorney immediately, who disallowed questioning until he was capable of answering questions.

It had nothing to do with evasion, but simply to do with his physical condition, with which very few people seem to be concerned.

My concerns also lay with the fact that if this is true, the nurse that released that information may well face being fired for a HIPAA violation. From what I understand, she was upset that people were villifying Darren, and wanted the information out there. No excuse, of course, to violate HIPAA, but a gutsy move.

It certainly explains in part, the delay in the obtaining, and release of information. Also, with Darren basically entrapped in the hospital, if true, it would have endangered all of the employees, as well as other patients, had they released that information while he was there.

Rest assured, a mob would have made every attempt to find him, and finish him off.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The second ME also is a known television figure, removed from the actual investigation. Even he has not been priveledged with some records, as has been made evident in his statement about not having received xrays.

And, let's be honest. A real ME should never interject their opinion. A real ME investigation is a fact based one, and should be performed in the most professional manner possible. A person that interjects their opinion in such a circumstance should be viewed as just that. An opinion, and we all have them.

If he was under oath, it would carry more weight, just as the opinions of the other ME's, if, and when asked, in a court of law.

However, he should be wiser, and know and fully understand, any premature release of information without a full gathering of facts can lead to unsubsubstantiated opinions being formed based on a lack of information, and taint a possible jury pool.

As it stands now, the officer will have a near impossible chance at a fair, impartial trial, let alone in Ferguson.

Expect a change in venue, IF he is indicted.

ETA - I also would like to state, what may appear to be "mundane" information actually on it's face may not be. For instance, the number of shots and the fact that Michael was not shot in the back.

While this may seem "mundane", and certainly one of the opinions of this ME, it also allowed a large number of alleged "witnesses" to make innumerable public, as well as police statements, claiming Michael was shot in the back, as well as shot anywhere from 7-10 times.

These statements carry very much weight in measuring the credibility of these witnesses in a court of law, and are self-indicting statements of belief and credibility.

What actually happened, whether by will or circumstance was, these witnesses were allowed to discredit themselves.

Loose lips sink ships and all that.

sorry, was it 9mm or .40 cal? again sorry if this information is already in the thread. knowing which weapon he used would be helpful in understanding several things...