Brown Autopsy Report Leaked by NYT

originally posted by: DexteramLucifer
...And I'll say it once again, No one has the actual toxicology report in question and until it is released all you are doing is spreading lies and propaganda and selling it as truth.

Your statement May be true...and May Not be true... Only time will tell.
At this time - there's probably, at least, a 50% chance that you are Wrong.

originally posted by: DexteramLucifer
a reply to: DexteramLucifer

...And if you were speaking about Mr Baden the ME, that is an outright lie you just told. He actually admitted during that interview he had not seen the actual toxicology report and that he could only speculate about pot possibly being in his(Brown's) system and the effects it would have.

Had you read through the thread - you might know that libertygal, on multiple occasions, stated that it was Johnson's Attorney...that corroborated the 'thc in the system' tox-report...
I know you said "if you were speaking about..." ...but the addendum was a bald-faced accusation.
Doesn't take much to check what someone has said in a thread...
FYI - you can click on the icon shaped like a head & shoulders at the bottom of the avatar...and choose "posts in thread".
If you already knew that...and still alleged as quoted... ... ... ...

a reply to: Kali74

Unless it was laced with something, and it does not always show up in a toxicology report either, and that is far more common now.

Grim

originally posted by: WanDash

originally posted by: DexteramLucifer
a reply to: DexteramLucifer

...And if you were speaking about Mr Baden the ME, that is an outright lie you just told. He actually admitted during that interview he had not seen the actual toxicology report and that he could only speculate about pot possibly being in his(Brown's) system and the effects it would have.

Had you read through the thread - you might know that libertygal, on multiple occasions, stated that it was Johnson's Attorney...that corroborated the 'thc in the system' tox-report...
I know you said "if you were speaking about..." ...but the addendum was a bald-faced accusation.
Doesn't take much to check what someone has said in a thread...
FYI - you can click on the icon shaped like a head & shoulders at the bottom of the avatar...and choose "posts in thread".
If you already knew that...and still alleged as quoted... ... ... ...

I did check, the ME she referenced "Mr Baden" was indeed interviewed and did in fact state that he had not seen a toxicology report and could only speculate as to what the effects would have been if indeed pot was found in his(brown's) system. And no, the Brown's attorney has not corroborated the toxicology report, as no such report is even ready yet. And since when is linking to a wapo story about someone other that the ME handling this case while supposedly speaking anonymously claiming that they have seen a prelim toxicology report and claiming pot was found in his(brown's) system to be taken as absolute proof of an official toxicology report. Which by the why is not available yet.

I note that it has become a fact for some that he "robbed" the shop. I suspect George Zimmerman, for example, would have been given the legal benefit of the doubt on that one.

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
I note that it has become a fact for some that he "robbed" the shop.

Considering Mr. Johnson said as much and Mr. Brown's attorney confirmed that was Mr. Brown in the video, why would it not be fact?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Because the video doesn't show him robbing the shop and the shop owner never reported the crime. The police even had to issue a search warrant to get the tape.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the guy didn't do anything wrong. Just that there is a double standard at work because the evidence is ambiguous and he certainly hasn't been prosecuted for robbery. Yet for some he is without doubt a 'strongarm robber'. These are not the careful legal kid gloves with which we were told George Zimmerman had to be treated.

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
Because the video doesn't show him robbing the shop and the shop owner never reported the crime. The police even had to issue a search warrant to get the tape.

Really? You must be the only person left on the planet that does not see Mr. Brown leaving with merchandise. Do you doubt Mr. Johnson's comments and admission that they robbed the store as well?

What does it matter who reported the crime? Additionally, the police need a search warrant to seize any private property, they cannot just walk in an take the disc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the guy didn't do anything wrong. Just that there is a double standard at work because the evidence is ambiguous and he certainly hasn't been prosecuted for robbery. Yet for some he is without doubt a 'strongarm robber'. These are not the careful legal kid gloves with which we were told George Zimmerman had to be treated.

There is no ambiguity. Mr. Johnson confirmed that was him and Mr. Brown and that the cigars were stolen. Why do you disbelieve him?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Really? You must be the only person left on the planet that does not see Mr. Brown leaving with merchandise.

You haven't bothered to check what a robbery is, have you? In all likelihood this is an instance of shoplifting but even that is not clear from the tape.

Do you doubt Mr. Johnson's comments and admission that they robbed the store as well?

Such an admission does not exist. Ask yourself, if Johnson robbed the store why has he not been arrested?

What does it matter who reported the crime? Additionally, the police need a search warrant to seize any private property, they cannot just walk in an take the disc.

Neither of these things matter in isolation, but doesn't it seem odd to you that the owner didn't report an alleged (I'm using that term, since it happens to be correct) strongarm robbery in his shop? And that the police went to such lengths to get the tape?

There is no ambiguity. Mr. Johnson confirmed that was him and Mr. Brown and that the cigars were stolen. Why do you disbelieve him?

I don't. I just have a better understanding of the legal definition of robbery than you. I also apparently understand when something remains subject to investigation rather than categorically proven.

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
You haven't bothered to check what a robbery is, have you? In all likelihood this is an instance of shoplifting but even that is not clear from the tape.

It becomes robbery once Mr. Brown physically assaults the shopkeeper. It would appear you have not checked the definition.

Such an admission does not exist. Ask yourself, if Johnson robbed the store why has he not been arrested?

Really? Maybe you should give Mr. Johnson's attorney a call and let him know:

FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) - The friend who was with Michael Brown when he was shot and killed by a police officer near St. Louis over the weekend is reportedly confirming that he and Brown had taken part in the theft of cigars from a convenience store that day.

That word comes from the attorney for Dorian Johnson, speaking to MSNBC. Police in Ferguson had earlier announced that Brown was suspected of taking cigars from the convenience store in what was described as a "strong-arm robbery." Source

He was also not charged as the police chief felt he did nothing wrong:

"We have determined he committed no crime," Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Friday. Source

Neither of these things matter in isolation, but doesn't it seem odd to you that the owner didn't report an alleged (I'm using that term, since it happens to be correct) strongarm robbery in his shop? And that the police went to such lengths to get the tape?

Perhaps the customer let him know that they had called making it unnecessary for him to call himself. And what 'lengths'? You need a warrant to confiscate private property.

I don't. I just have a better understanding of the legal definition of robbery than you. I also apparently understand when something remains subject to investigation rather than categorically proven.

Well then, maybe you should call the Department of Justice and let them know they should encourage Ferguson to change the definition of strong arm robbery to fit yours since you obviously have the correct one.

Mr. Brown took merchandise without paying and assaulted the clerk. It is therefore, without doubt, strong arm ROBBERY.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


It becomes robbery once Mr. Brown physically assaults the shopkeeper. It would appear you have not checked the definition.

On the tape you can neither conclusively see assault or the theft of goods. Neither fact has been tested in a court of law. He becomes a proven robber once that's happened, not because you think you can see something on a tape.

Really? Maybe you should give Mr. Johnson's attorney a call and let him know:

FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) - The friend who was with Michael Brown when he was shot and killed by a police officer near St. Louis over the weekend is reportedly confirming that he and Brown had taken part in the theft of cigars from a convenience store that day.

That word comes from the attorney for Dorian Johnson, speaking to MSNBC. Police in Ferguson had earlier announced that Brown was suspected of taking cigars from the convenience store in what was described as a "strong-arm robbery." Source

Perhaps you could point to Johnson's "admission that they robbed the store"? Which is what you claimed.

He was also not charged as the police chief felt he did nothing wrong:

"We have determined he committed no crime," Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Friday. Source

But you just said he admitted to robbing the store! Which is it?

Perhaps the customer let him know that they had called making it unnecessary for him to call himself. And what 'lengths'? You need a warrant to confiscate private property.

Why did they want it? As you admit it wasn't part of an investigation - the guy they didn't kill was innocent. (Or he is now, you don't seem certain).

Well then, maybe you should call the Department of Justice and let them know they should encourage Ferguson to change the definition of strong arm robbery to fit yours since you obviously have the correct one.

Mr. Brown took merchandise without paying and assaulted the clerk. It is therefore, without doubt, strong arm ROBBERY.

I don't think you know either of those things for sure. What I'm certain of is that they have not been proven in court, so you acting as though he is a convicted 'strongarm robber' is nonsense. And I'm also pretty sure that if this was the other way round you would be insisting we extend the benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty. That is, after all, what courts do.

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
On the tape you can neither conclusively see assault or the theft of goods. Neither fact has been tested in a court of law. He becomes a proven robber once that's happened, not because you think you can see something on a tape.

Putting your hands on someone and shoving is assault. What planet are you living on?

Perhaps you could point to Johnson's "admission that they robbed the store"? Which is what you claimed.

“We see that there’s tape, that they claim they got a tape that shows there was some sort of strong-armed robbery,” said Freeman Bosley, Johnson’s attorney. “We need to see that tape, my client did tell us and told the FBI that they went into the store. He told FBI that [Brown] did take cigarillos. He told that to the DOJ and the St. Louis County Police.” Source

Confirmed by Mr. Johnson's attorney, they took cigars and committed robbery. End of story.

But you just said he admitted to robbing the store! Which is it?

I said Mr. Johnson confirmed that it was them on the tape and that Mr. Brown committed robbery.

Why did they want it? As you admit it wasn't part of an investigation - the guy they didn't kill was innocent. (Or he is now, you don't seem certain).

The answer is fairly obvious, a call was made that a robbery was committed. It eventually turned out to be the same person.

I don't think you know either of those things for sure. What I'm certain of is that they have not been proven in court, so you acting as though he is a convicted 'strongarm robber' is nonsense. And I'm also pretty sure that if this was the other way round you would be insisting we extend the benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty. That is, after all, what courts do.

The video, and Mr. Johnson's admissions make it pretty clear cut. Stop being an apologist for felonious behavior.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Putting your hands on someone and shoving is assault. What planet are you living on?

One where people get tried and convicted before being pronounced as criminals. I think it's unlikely that this would be prosecuted as such, you disagree. The fact of the matter is that it has not been. So whatever you - an admitted non-expert - think you can see, he is not a proven felon.

“We see that there’s tape, that they claim they got a tape that shows there was some sort of strong-armed robbery,” said Freeman Bosley, Johnson’s attorney. “We need to see that tape, my client did tell us and told the FBI that they went into the store. He told FBI that [Brown] did take cigarillos. He told that to the DOJ and the St. Louis County Police.” Source

Confirmed by Mr. Johnson's attorney, they took cigars and committed robbery. End of story.

That isn't a confirmation of robbery. It's an admission of theft. They are - and you keep making this mistake - two different things.

I said Mr. Johnson confirmed that it was them on the tape and that Mr. Brown committed robbery.

Wrong. You said

"Do you doubt Mr. Johnson's comments and admission that they robbed the store as well?"

Even now you are still incorrect as Johnson has nowhere admitted even to Brown robbing the store.

The answer is fairly obvious, a call was made that a robbery was committed. It eventually turned out to be the same person.

That's not what the police say. They claim they went to get the tape in response to press FOI requests, not as part of any investigation.

Are you just making things up as you go along?

The video, and Mr. Johnson's admissions make it pretty clear cut. Stop being an apologist for felonious behavior.

Stop inventing it.

a reply to: JuniorDisco

One where people get tried and convicted before being pronounced as criminals.

It may come into question in another trial (the police officer's... if there is one), but Michael Brown will not be tried due to the obvious reason.

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
One where people get tried and convicted before being pronounced as criminals. I think it's unlikely that this would be prosecuted as such, you disagree. The fact of the matter is that it has not been. So whatever you - an admitted non-expert - think you can see, he is not a proven felon.

How do you put a dead man on trial?

That isn't a confirmation of robbery. It's an admission of theft. They are - and you keep making this mistake - two different things.

It most certainly becomes robbery after Mr. Brown assaults the clerk. Stop spreading false information.

Wrong. You said

"Do you doubt Mr. Johnson's comments and admission that they robbed the store as well?"

Even now you are still incorrect as Johnson has nowhere admitted even to Brown robbing the store.

If that were the case then why has Mr. Johnson's attorney confirmed that Mr. Johnson informed the FBI that a robbery was committed? Are attorneys in the habit of inadvertently linking their clients with felonies?

That's not what the police say. They claim they went to get the tape in response to press FOI requests, not as part of any investigation.

Are you just making things up as you go along?

Because it turned out to be the same person. Nothing needs to be made up, that is Mr. Brown committing a strong arm robbery.

Stop inventing it.

So that is not Mr. Johnson's attorney on MSNBC?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

It most certainly becomes robbery after Mr. Brown assaults the clerk. Stop spreading false information.

You're becoming confused and conflating different things. This is why trial procedures are deliberate and complex.

You claimed that Johnson had admitted "they" had committed a robbery. You then backtracked and claimed that it was his attorney that had admitted it. You are now saying that he didn't admit it at all, but that you have decided that it is a robbery, even though he only admitted theft.

That's very different.

If that were the case then why has Mr. Johnson's attorney confirmed that Mr. Johnson informed the FBI that a robbery was committed? Are attorneys in the habit of inadvertently linking their clients with felonies?

He has not done that. You are inventing it.

Because it turned out to be the same person. Nothing needs to be made up, that is Mr. Brown committing a strong arm robbery.

You made up this, in answer to why the tape was recovered:

"The answer is fairly obvious, a call was made that a robbery was committed."

The tape was not in fact recovered because of a call about the robbery. Even the police admit this. You simply invented or assumed this reason.

So that is not Mr. Johnson's attorney on MSNBC?

He's not apparently saying what you think he is.

Your whole approach is the literal definition of bias. You have decided that things happened a certain way, and are changing the details to fit in with the facts as you want them to be. This is a mistake if you want to reach an impartial conclusion.

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
You claimed that Johnson had admitted "they" had committed a robbery. You then backtracked and claimed that it was his attorney that had admitted it.

When your attorney speaks on your behalf it is considered the same as you speaking. That is why you hire one.

You are now saying that he didn't admit it at all, but that you have decided that it is a robbery, even though he only admitted theft.

I said no such thing. Mr. Johnson's attorney confirmed that Mr. Johnson informed three spate investigators that Mr. Brown stole the merchandise. It then becomes robbery when he assaults the clerk.

He has not done that. You are inventing it.

Really? I gave you the link. What does Mr. Johnson's attorney say?

You made up this, in answer to why the tape was recovered:
"The answer is fairly obvious, a call was made that a robbery was committed."

Exactly. A call was made, otherwise how did the police know to request the tape? The police did not initially know that Mr. Brown was involved in both the robbery and the shooting.

He's not apparently saying what you think he is.

Oh, really? So what is he saying then?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

When your attorney speaks on your behalf it is considered the same as you speaking. That is why you hire one.

Sort of. Although it's unlikely that what his attorney said would be admissable in the sense you are implying. And in any case he didn't even say what you claimed.

I said no such thing. Mr. Johnson's attorney confirmed that Mr. Johnson informed three spate investigators that Mr. Brown stole the merchandise. It then becomes robbery when he assaults the clerk.

To be clear, you cannot claim that a man has admitted a felony when he has not. You could have said "Johnson's attorney admits that his client said his friend stole from the store and I think it's a robbery", but you did not. You said that Johnson had confessed to he and Brown committing robbery.

He did no such thing. This has been shown to be a lie. I assume you did this to paint Brown in a bad light, but admittedly that's a guess.

Exactly. A call was made, otherwise how did the police know to request the tape? The police did not initially know that Mr. Brown was involved in both the robbery and the shooting.

I'm not saying a call wasn't made. I'm saying that you invented the reason for the police recovering the tape - even they admit it was in response to FOI requests, not because of any call. I happen to think they're lying, but the fact is they don't agree with you, and you have no evidence for your version of events at all.

Oh, really? So what is he saying then?

He's saying his client admits that Brown stole from the shop. That's a long way from Johnson admitting that he and Brown robbed the place. But then, hey, who cares about details?

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
Sort of. Although it's unlikely that what his attorney said would be admissable in the sense you are implying. And in any case he didn't even say what you claimed.

He is Mr. Johnson's legal representation and as such speaks for him in that regard, what Mr. Johnson says can be cited by a District Attorney in any criminal proceedings.

To be clear, you cannot claim that a man has admitted a felony when he has not. You could have said "Johnson's attorney admits that his client said his friend stole from the store and I think it's a robbery", but you did not. You said that Johnson had confessed to he and Brown committing robbery.

Semantics. Mr. Johnson admitted to being present when the felony was committed, thereby dispelling any doubt that people have regarding that being Mr. Brown in the video and whether he was or not strong arm robbing that store.

He did no such thing. This has been shown to be a lie. I assume you did this to paint Brown in a bad light, but admittedly that's a guess.

I do not have to paint Mr. Brown in a bad light, his felonious actions do that for him. I did not state that Mr. Johnson committed strong arm robbery, although a zealous prosecutor could have gotten away with lumping him into the crime, I stated that Mr. Johnson's attorney stated that Mr. Brown committed the crime. I apologize if I was not clear enough on this.

I'm not saying a call wasn't made. I'm saying that you invented the reason for the police recovering the tape - even they admit it was in response to FOI requests, not because of any call. I happen to think they're lying, but the fact is they don't agree with you, and you have no evidence for your version of events at all.

You asked why they would confiscate the tapes, I said because a call was made. How did they press find out the tape existed? They obviously got word a call was made since the police seemed to not be aware.

He's saying his client admits that Brown stole from the shop. That's a long way from Johnson admitting that he and Brown robbed the place. But then, hey, who cares about details?

Mr. Johnson's admission would be enough to convict Mr. Brown if he were still alive considering the compelling video evidence.

originally posted by: DexteramLucifer
...I did check, the ME she referenced "Mr Baden" was indeed interviewed and did in fact state that he had not seen a toxicology report and could only speculate as to what the effects would have been if indeed pot was found in his(brown's) system. ...

Wow!
That's impressive...
Here are a few links...
Aug 18 - 6:35 PM
"...Johnsons' attorney just confirmed...the tox report was factual..."

Aug 18 - 6:47 PM
"...The tox report was just confirmed as factual...by Johnsons' attorney..."

Aug 18 - 8:19 PM
"...This tox report has been confirmed as true and correct by multiple sources now, including Johnson's attorney, several other officials, including an ME that was interviewed, and Ben Crump. It is now treated as fact..."

Aug 18 - 10:05 PM
"...Not clear if Baden did a tox study, or not. He may or may not have..."

...And no, the Brown's attorney has not corroborated the toxicology report, as no such report is even ready yet...

Libertygal's comments preceding your own, addressed the proposition that there are "quick" (qualitative) tox screens, and in-depth (quantitative) tox screens.
The 'quick' screens identify the presence of a substance, while the 'in-depth' screens measure the quantities of said substances...and...these in-depth screens often take in the neighborhood of 6 weeks to complete.

If you have evidence/link/source that Brown's attorney has not corroborated the tox report...referenced by Libertygal -- &/or evidence that no such report is even ready yet...would you mind providing the same (link, source, etc...), as, it would be helpful to know.
Thanks