Has anyone seen this yet?
KU Journalism student shreds case against Mike Brown
I'ma just copy and paste it in here. I pasted in the links too.
I sort of dislike to "shred" a "shredding" but some points leaped out at me.
First, a general one; including evidence from media reports (frequently from within the first week or two when everything was confused) which was in turn discredited by the evidence in the Grand Jury strikes me as somewhat deceptive; especially as some of the things mentioned above are directly
contradicted by the evidence submitted to the Grand Jury.
To pick up on some specific points:
-Mike Brown WAS fleeing from Officer Wilson when he was fatally shot. Wilson confirms this on page 281 of his grand jury testimony.
This is mis-stating what Wilson says on p281... to put it in context:
One thing you guys haven't asked that has been asked of me in other interviews is, was he a threat, was Michael Brown a threat when he was running away? People asked why would you chase him if he was running away now?
It's clear that when Wilson was discussing Brown fleeing it was in the context of his decision to chase, not to shoot.
Officer Wilson broke police self-defense protocol, which teaches to disarm and incapacitate rather than kill and teaches officers to go for body shots. Officer Wilson shot Mike Brown twice in the head, after he shot him four times in his arm and torso.
This strikes me as being pretty contradictory in-and-of itself; if he'd already shot Brown in the torso then he had
gone for body shots. Moreover I can't find a source for what Ferguson police self-defense protocol requires but I rather suspect it doesn't include a "shoot to incapacitate" section; pretty much every time I've heard the idea of "shoot to wound" discussed by experienced firearm users it's dismissed as a Hollywood fallacy... there are no places that are reliably non-lethal to shoot (a shot aimed at the knee cap may well catch the femoral artery for example). A shot at the body would have to be classed as a lethal shot (or at least an attempt at one).
-While Officer Wilson’s story of what happened that day has changed at least three times, six separate eyewitnesses, four of whom have never met each other, all have identical accounts of what happened. They were never interviewed by police.
Of the six witnesses mentioned in that link at least four of them openly testified before the Grand Jury, one of them appears to have as an unnamed witness and the only one I haven't been able to find evidence of (but may still be another one of the unnamed witnesses) openly says he spoke to the FBI about the shooting.
Moreover all of the evidence they offered to the Grand Jury had differences to what they told the media; some relatively minor some notable. Of particular note may be one of the construction workers who testified that three officers pursued Brown.
-These eyewitnesses all agree that Darren Wilson was the aggressor and that Mike Brown was shot while surrendering, with his hands in the air and that his last words were “I don’t have a gun. Stop shooting.”
1) An above point tries to suggest that Brown was shot when fleeing... so why is it being argued below that he was shot when surrendering?
2) The blood splatter evidence indicates that Brown was moving away from Wilson, stopped, turned and came back towards Wilson. That corresponds with Wilson's account that Brown stopped, turned and charged him after originally running away. Now, that doesn't prove that he charged Wilson... he could have turned and walked towards Wilson while surrendering... but none of the witnesses who put forward the "hands up, don't shoot" take on the events said that Brown came towards Wilson at all while surrendering, instead saying he was stood still.
3) Several of them attested at various times that Brown was shot in the back. There's only one wound to the back; the back of one of Wilson's arms.
-This is backed up by Mike Brown’s autopsy, which suggests that Mike Brown would have had to be in the hands-up position for the bullets to enter his hand and arm the way they did.
1) Not according to either autopsy (the state one and the one arranged by Brown's family/supporters) as entered at the Grand Jury or the testimony of the medical examiner and forensic expert (again, arranged by Brown's family/supporters) both of which make clear that they're unable to tell exactly where his hands were positioned.
2) The only wound to Brown's hand was a shot to his thumb. The gunpowder residue from this wound on the rest of Brown's hand indicates that this was caused by a gunshot from 6-9 inches away and skin tissue from Brown's thumb was found within Wilson's car (agreed by both sides). This corresponds with Wilson's testimony that the pair struggled for his gun and pretty much outright refutes the idea that the wound to the hand was inflicted when Brown had his hands up surrendering and was shot at distance.
-Furthermore, in a press conference, the coroner who performed Mike Brown’s autopsy relays that there was no trace of gun shot residue anywhere on his body, proving that Wilson’s claim that Mike Brown grabbed his gun, causing it to misfire, is impossible and untrue.
Which he went back on in his Grand Jury testimony having had more time to examine the body (his first assessment that there was no powder/residue was done by eyesight alone). Page 40 and 41, Volume 23 covers his testimony on this; he accepts that there was gun powder residue and that the wound to the hand was caused by a shot from "within a few inches".
-Owner of Ferguson Market states that he did not call police to report a theft of cigars, that the theft had nothing to do with Mike Brown, and that the man on the security footage is not Mike Brown.
Contradicted by the evidence of Dorian Johnson (Brown's friend) who openly admits that Brown was in the store and that Brown then stole the cigarillos. Moreover the police did receive a call about the theft and dispatched an officer to investigate (who in turn was the first officer outside of Wilson to the scene of the shooting).
All in all the only "shredding" which seems to hold up is that related to police procedure in the wake of the shooting; that's important certainly and something that should be paid attention to.
But for the stuff around the shooting itself? It seems to basically be a combination of misreading evidence from the Grand Jury and relying on "evidence" and media reports that were later either retracted or contradicted by stronger evidence.