Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:23 PM
Michigander_Life (549 posts)
Three different autopsies: trouble for trial?
It is now being reported that in addition to autopsies conducted by the Missouri medical examiner and the private autopsy ordered by Brown's family, a third autopsy has been ordered by the Justice department.
What will this mean for Wilson's future trial, if all three autopsies are conflicting? Which one will be credible? I'm concerned that we are going to see another bungled prosecution.
|
21 replies, 2600 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Michigander_Life | Aug 2014 | OP |
Hoyt | Aug 2014 | #1 | |
AtomicKitten | Aug 2014 | #10 | |
Hoyt | Aug 2014 | #12 | |
AtomicKitten | Aug 2014 | #14 | |
Little Star | Aug 2014 | #2 | |
Cooley Hurd | Aug 2014 | #3 | |
The Magistrate | Aug 2014 | #16 | |
gollygee | Aug 2014 | #4 | |
enough | Aug 2014 | #5 | |
avebury | Aug 2014 | #8 | |
amandabeech | Aug 2014 | #11 | |
davidn3600 | Aug 2014 | #18 | |
amandabeech | Aug 2014 | #19 | |
Jim__ | Aug 2014 | #6 | |
SwankyXomb | Aug 2014 | #17 | |
LisaL | Aug 2014 | #7 | |
Michigander_Life | Aug 2014 | #9 | |
jwirr | Aug 2014 | #13 | |
treestar | Aug 2014 | #15 | |
Lurks Often | Aug 2014 | #21 | |
PoliticAverse | Aug 2014 | #20 |
Response to Michigander_Life (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:42 PM
Hoyt (54,770 posts)
1. I think it will more likely lead to truth.
I would think findings -- like the number of shots, where they entered and exited, etc. -- would be reasonably consistent among any professional pathologist. Now the interpretation -- like he was incapacitated after the first or second shot, rendering all others indicative of murder (assuming one and two weren't murder, in the first place) -- might differ.
Seems to me that if there were multiple shots, shots in the back, etc., then whether the first or second shot was justified, is a moot question. It's murder, or something similar depending on how laws are written. Now, if there were not multiple shots, shots in the back, etc., then it is possible the first shot might be justified (at least from a micro perspective -- but, there has to be better ways of handling these things from a societal perspective). But, we need to know a lot more before saying it was murder from the start. I am convinced it was "wrong" from the start. It just didn't have to happen this way. |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #1)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:20 PM
AtomicKitten (46,585 posts)
10. The state autopsy didn't mention how many GSW he sustained.
The report concluded he died of gunshot, but failed to mention the number of times he was shot.
I know the family asked the DOJ to do an independent autopsy but I hadn't heard the family is arranging a third one. |
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #10)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:28 PM
Hoyt (54,770 posts)
12. That would seem to be a critical fact. Glad there will be a 2nd or 3rd autopsy.
I think my cat could have come to the conclusion this tragedy ended in death by gun shot. Of course, my cat seems to have more sense than some of the characters involved since the tragedy.
|
Response to Hoyt (Reply #12)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:38 PM
AtomicKitten (46,585 posts)
14. A blind cat could have come to that conclusion.
The audacity of putting out an official report without stating the number of times the victim was shot is almost unbelievable.
|
Response to Michigander_Life (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:44 PM
Little Star (17,055 posts)
2. I just want to see some justice for Mike Brown & his family.
Response to Michigander_Life (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:45 PM
Cooley Hurd (26,877 posts)
3. A bigger trouble for a fair trial will be when the police lie their asses off...
...on the stand. Which they will certainly do.
|
Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #3)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:56 PM
The Magistrate (93,125 posts)
16. True, Sir
To put it cold and blunt: when a police officer is on trial for abusive conduct, the judge's instructions to the jury really ought to include something like 'In assessing testimony you have heard, you should bear in mind police officers lie, and in fact are trained to lie, to justify use of force, and you should put no special weight on police testimony when it conflicts with that of a citizen witness.'
|
Response to Michigander_Life (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:52 PM
gollygee (22,336 posts)
4. Well
Brown's family doesn't trust the state of Missouri's medical examiner, and the police department is unlikely to trust Brown's family's paid examiner, or at least they'll claim anything in that report is unreliable regardless of how they feel about it, so I imagine the Justice Department's examination will be the most trusted.
|
Response to Michigander_Life (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 12:58 PM
enough (12,865 posts)
5. Realistically, it's unlikely there will ever be a trial, at least not in criminal court. (nt)
Response to enough (Reply #5)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:06 PM
avebury (10,810 posts)
8. I have always thought that there will
be a Federal trial. You just can't trust the locals.
|
Response to avebury (Reply #8)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:28 PM
amandabeech (9,893 posts)
11. That's what people were counting on in the Trayvon Martin case.
It didn't happen.
Here, though, the Justice Department jumped on the case within a handful of days instead of a handful of months. |
Response to amandabeech (Reply #11)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 02:17 PM
davidn3600 (6,342 posts)
18. Difference is Zimmerman was a private citizen where this case involves the police
It would have been very difficult for the DOJ to prosecute Zimmerman. There may have been a slight angle they could use claiming Zimmerman violated Trayvon's civil rights. But I don't know if that has ever been applied in that manner to a private citizen who was acquitted of the crime at the state trial.
Typically you only see the feds pursue a case like that if the accused is a police officer, or public official, or government agent of some type and there is evidence of institutional corruption involved. So the DOJ jumped on this because it involves the police. |
Response to davidn3600 (Reply #18)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 02:21 PM
amandabeech (9,893 posts)
19. There is nothing in the law that precludes the Justice Department from
from charging an individual with the civil rights violation.
IIRC, and I was young, that tactic was used back in the '60s, particularly in the south. |
Response to Michigander_Life (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:03 PM
Jim__ (13,649 posts)
6. It seems pretty certain that McCullogh is not bringing the cop to trial.
It's probably best not to trust an autopsy performed by the county.
|
Response to Jim__ (Reply #6)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 02:13 PM
SwankyXomb (2,030 posts)
17. McCullogh wouldn't bring the invisible Mr. Wilson to trial
If he had a signed and filmed confession.
|
Response to Michigander_Life (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:05 PM
LisaL (44,674 posts)
7. Why do you assume autopsies will be different.
A bullet hole is a bullet hole.
|
Response to LisaL (Reply #7)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:06 PM
Michigander_Life (549 posts)
9. Just a hunch.
Nothing ever seems to be easy in these cases.
|
Response to Michigander_Life (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:37 PM
jwirr (39,215 posts)
13. I read that the Justice Department was asked to do their by the victims family. Only 2 autopsies.
Response to Michigander_Life (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:49 PM
treestar (80,791 posts)
15. How much could their findings vary?
Anyone have the expertise to talk about that?
I would think it would be clear whether or not he was shot in the back. But then I remember the JFK arguments. |
Response to treestar (Reply #15)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 03:11 PM
Lurks Often (5,455 posts)
21. There should be minimal to no variation
in regard to wound trajectories and other physical trauma, the same goes for the toxicology report.
You may see more variation in the testimony on how long it took for Brown to die or become incapacitated, since that has always been more of a variable, since intangibles such as will power and mindset impact a person's response to being shot. To put it a different way, if 2 different people are shot in the same spot with the same gun and the same type of bullet, the physical trauma will be very similar, how they react to the shot varies from person to person, it's why some people go into shock or pass out and others don't when injured. |
Response to Michigander_Life (Original post)
Sun Aug 17, 2014, 02:48 PM
PoliticAverse (26,366 posts)