Three different autopsies: trouble for trial?

[Michigander_Life]

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.

[Hoyt]

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.

[AtomicKitten]

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.

[Hoyt]

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.

[AtomicKitten]

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.

[Little Star]

2. I just want to see some justice for Mike Brown & his family.

[Cooley Hurd]

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.

[The Magistrate]

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.'

[gollygee]

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.

[enough]

5. Realistically, it's unlikely there will ever be a trial, at least not in criminal court. (nt)

[avebury]

8. I have always thought that there will

be a Federal trial. You just can't trust the locals.

[amandabeech]

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.

[davidn3600]

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.

[amandabeech]

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.

[Jim__]

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.

[SwankyXomb]

17. McCullogh wouldn't bring the invisible Mr. Wilson to trial

If he had a signed and filmed confession.

[LisaL]

7. Why do you assume autopsies will be different.

A bullet hole is a bullet hole.

[Michigander_Life]

9. Just a hunch.

Nothing ever seems to be easy in these cases.

[jwirr]

13. I read that the Justice Department was asked to do their by the victims family. Only 2 autopsies.

[treestar]

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.

[Lurks Often]

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.

[PoliticAverse]

20. "Which one will be credible?" - That's what a judge or jury will decide if it goes to trial. n/t