Regarding forensic evidence.

[Uncle Joe]

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/ferguson-national-guard-arrives-but-violent-protests-continue-106219.html#ixzz3AtfIkHQE

Parcells, who assisted former New York City chief medical examiner Baden during the private autopsy, said a bullet grazed Brown's right arm. He said the wound indicates Brown may have had his back to the shooter, or he could have been facing the shooter with his hands above his head or in a defensive position across his chest or face.

"We don't know," Parcells said. "We still have to look at the other (elements) of this investigation before we start piecing things together."

Baden said one of the bullets entered the top of Brown's skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when he suffered that fatal injury. The hired pathologists said Brown, who also was shot four times in the right arm, could have survived the other bullet wounds.

Baden also said there was no gunpowder residue on Brown's body, indicating he was not shot at close range. However, Baden said he did not have access to Brown's clothing, and that it was possible the residue could be on the clothing.

Crump also said that Brown had abrasions on his face from where he fell to the ground, but there was "otherwise no evidence of a struggle."

Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/ferguson-national-guard-arrives-but-violent-protests-continue-106219.html#ixzz3AtrcfMh4
Follow us: @ABC7News on Twitter | WJLATV on Facebook

This much we do know at least from one if not two opinions.

1. Brown either had his back turned or was in a defensive position when he was shot multiple times.

2. Most likely he was shot from a distance as there was no gunpowder residue on the body, the jury is still out on his clothes.

3. There was no evidence of a struggle with the only abrasions being to Brown's face after he hit the street.

[onecaliberal]

1. So no hand injury.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Apparently not, onecaliberal.

Crump also said that Brown had abrasions on his face from where he fell to the ground, but there was "otherwise no evidence of a struggle."

[Ms. Toad]

10. I think you're either misreading the question - or the report.

The second autopsy report indicated there was a gunshot wound to the hand. The sketchy summary from the first autopsy report doesn't directly address the hand at all. A hand injury could be either a gunshot wound, or an injury from a struggle. The first autopsy ruled out the latter, but not the former.

[Uncle Joe]

17. I misread the question, I thought the poster was referring to hand abrasions or bruises

from punching or fighting the police officer

I already knew that Brown had been shot in the hand.

[onecaliberal]

23. I wasn't talking about the graze injury,

I was talking about bruising. Michael never punched that pig in the eye like has been reported.

[Uncle Joe]

33. Then we're in agreement, onecaliberal. n/t

[onecaliberal]

35. Yes, we are.

[longship]

3. Yup! Too many amateur forensic experts here (amateur experts -- oxymoron).

Of course, one could arguably include this very post...

And the OP...

ARRRRGH!

[Uncle Joe]

4. Do you disagree with Baden, Parcells and Crump's statements?

What in my OP do you disagree with?

[longship]

5. No. I disagree with the speculative DU posts that go beyond the science.

There were three autopsies, at least two were forensic, meaning that they were done by experts in crime violence.

But apparently we have more than a few DUers who are willing to draw conclusions based on their opinion of released information on the autopsies instead of the conclusion of the autopsy.

The science is what the science is.

Speculation is speculation.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Where did my "speculation" differ from their expert opinions or statements? n/t

[Ms. Toad]

11. As to #1 -

defensive and back turned are possibilities - but not the ONLY possibilities mentioned.

[Uncle Joe]

12. It seems to be the only possibilities that the experts cited.

Parcells, who assisted former New York City chief medical examiner Baden during the private autopsy, said a bullet grazed Brown's right arm. He said the wound indicates Brown may have had his back to the shooter, or he could have been facing the shooter with his hands above his head or in a defensive position across his chest or face.

Why would you have your hands above your head but to signal surrender?

In my book that would qualify as defensive, in addition to using your hands or arms to shield your body.

[Ms. Toad]

14. Hands above the head was not the only option identified by Dr. Bader (2nd autopsy,

commisioned by the family.

“This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”

He stressed that his information does not assign blame or justify the shooting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html

The forearm and hand wounds could have been sustained from the back - earlier in the sequence when he was walking away - or later if he had his hands up giving up. Only one of those was mentioned in the NYT article (which didn't provide as much detail as the on camera interviews about how the hand and forearm wounds could have been sustained).

Similarly, as to the head wounds, Dr. Bader offered two possibilities - both of which were facing Wilson. One of them was defensive (giving up) - but the other of which (charging) was not defensive - and not from the back.

[Uncle Joe]

15. I'm wondering if there is a third possibility?

After being shot at while running away, and/or after turning around and being shot again particularly if his arms were already raised, might Brown have been ducking to make himself a smaller target or diving for the ground when he received the fatal head wound?

[Ms. Toad]

20. It could well be. I read an article which mentioned several similar possibilities

for why some witnesses reported him running toward Wilson. It didn't specifically mention trying to make himself a smaller target, but it suggested he might have been trying to get to someplace in the general direction of Wilson that he might have perceived to be less dangerous.

[Uncle Joe]

30. Except that doesn't square with the testimony of the five witnesses.

They said he stopped, turned around and had his arms raised, although I read a few days ago that one said he was standing and another said he was kneeling.

None of them said he was moving to another area.

[Ms. Toad]

34. Unfortunately, eye witnesses are not always reliable

And they are not as uniform as those who have been willing to have their names and faces disclosed

The conflicting witness reports are described here:

But on the crucial moments that followed, the accounts differ sharply, officials say. Some witnesses say that Mr. Brown, 18, moved toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner, when the officer shot him dead. But others say that Mr. Brown was not moving and may even have had his hands up when he was killed.

The accounts of what witnesses have told local and federal law enforcement authorities come from some of those witnesses themselves, law enforcement authorities and others in Ferguson. Many spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing a continuing investigation.

The new details on the witness accounts emerged as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was scheduled to visit Ferguson on Wednesday to meet with F.B.I. agents who have been conducting a civil rights investigation into the shooting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

[Uncle Joe]

36. I agree but the five named in this thread are in basic agreement, a sixth on your link concurs

Brown wasn't charging.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025416199

What They Saw: 5 Eyewitnesses to the Michael Brown Shooting

From your link

James McKnight, who also said he saw the shooting, said that Mr. Brown’s hands were up right after he turned around to face the officer.

“I saw him stumble toward the officer, but not rush at him,” Mr. McKnight said in a brief interview. “The officer was about six or seven feet away from him.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

I agree eyewitnesses aren't always reliable but when five or six named witnesses state essentially the same thing, their credibility as a group goes up.

[HooptieWagon]

28. Unlikely he would charge while holding his hands up.

You confusing a shooting with a basketball game.

[Ms. Toad]

29. If I am, then so is the doctor retained by the family to do the autopsy.

His explanation for the head wounds were charging OR giving up. In other words alternate scenarios - not simultaneous ones.

[HooptieWagon]

32. Exactly.

Brown could not have sustained the arm wounds while charging, since it would be an unnatural pose to have the arms straight down or held up. The 1st head wound could not have occurred while charging,, since it was in the face. After sustaining several arm wounds and a shot to the face, its very unlikely Brown then decided to charge the shooter while unarmed. The most likely scenerio is he was falling forward or already on the ground when the fatal head shot occurred. Baden was merely describing the position the head was in when the fatal shot happened, not the probability of it being any particular scenerio. He might have even said the shot could have come while Brown was doing a somersault or handstand. The point is, there are several scenerios, that while fitting the angle of shot, have a low probability of occurring.

[longship]

13. Not necessarily yours. But there are multiple threads on this issue.

And many DUers are trying to be forensic experts, with some pretty wild speculations. Not a good idea, IMHO.

Sorry. I was not intending to call out any single individual, especially not your post, which at least tries to put some rationality to it. (But I take it that you are not a forensic pathology expert, either.)

Maybe we need to let this play out and stop speculating.

The one thing we do know is that an unarmed guy was shot by a cop about six times. Isn't that enough?

[Uncle Joe]

19. I never claimed to be a forensic pathologist but I see no harm in discussing the issue.

I agree with you longship, an unarmed man was shot at least six times but I've also read there might have been eight times.

I never took offense from your posts.

Peace to you.

[pintobean]

21. I wouldn't use Crump's comments as an expert.

He's a lawyer. He should have just let the experts speak. His attempts at spinning looked pretty sleazy, to me.

[Uncle Joe]

31. Crump is their attorney but I don't believe he would made that kind of statement had

Baden and Parcells not already reported to him on their autopsy findings.

Of course I could be wrong about that.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

7. So much for Josie's (Wilson's) version

Your point 2. Most likely he was shot from a distance as there was no gunpowder residue on the body, the jury is still out on his clothes.

If he was shot at extremely close range in the forehead when bum rushing Wilson, as Josie claims, he likely would have had gunpowder on that body part, as he was wearing no mask or facial covering that we know of. Michael Baden said that final shot would have immediately killed Brown and so he wouldn't have traveled far thereafter.



"...All of the sudden, [Brown] just started to bum rush him,” Josie added. “He just started coming at him, full-speed, and so [Wilson] just started shooting, and [Brown] just kept coming.”

“So [Wilson] really thinks [Brown] was on something, because he just kept coming. It was unbelievable. And so he finally ended up, the final shot was in the forehead, and then he fell about two to three feet in front of the officer.”

[Uncle Joe]

8. I agree with your take on it, aint_no_life_nowhere, but I felt compelled to put that qualifier in

there because I wanted to stick as close as possible to the actual statements made by the experts in my summation.

Baden also said there was no gunpowder residue on Brown's body, indicating he was not shot at close range. However, Baden said he did not have access to Brown's clothing, and that it was possible the residue could be on the clothing.

I wanted to err on the side of caution.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Your post did trigger a question in my mind though, why didn't they get access to his clothes? n/t

[SwankyXomb]

16. Chain of custody for the evidence

Plus a medical examiner wouldn't be processing clothing anyway.

[Uncle Joe]

18. I hear you, SwankyXomb but if you're going so far as to get a second opinion autopsy on the body

then having another independent opinion regarding gunpowder residue on the clothes would seem logical to me.

[mythology]

24. I agree that all of the people performing an autopsy

Should have access to all of the evidence, including the clothing. Yes there is chain of evidence, but there should be a way to preserve that while giving the outside ME access to it, especially in a case where there is this much raw emotion.

[bettyellen]

25. it blows my mind that they did not give Baden the x rays or anything about residue.

seems wrong to me.

[HereSince1628]

22. Just a non-expert observation...leading to a questions, not a conclusion

Except for the head and neck wounds, the wound's to Brown were on his right side. But that appearance could be due to posture of the arm, that took much of the gunfire. If the arm is crossed in front of the chest or face, as might be done in a defensive posture against a hail of bullets then the bullets would seem to mostly strike in a cluster aligned with the center of the body.

If in the moment the shooter had a tendency to miss to the shooter's left, what's the likelihood that the one bullet that is supposed to have struck him from behind would be the one shot that goes to the shooters right?

If the shots were fired in a centered cluster into a man in a defensive posture is the body telling the coroner something important?

[HooptieWagon]

27. Good point.

It might be possible that a shot fired from behind was slightly off-target to the right, hitting Brown's arm (or hand). Brown then turned to surrender, meaning the shooter had to reacquire the target. Next few shots missed slightly left, hitting same arm. Final shots hit head as he was falling.
I present that not as what I think happened (although pretty close), but as a possible explanation for the question you posed.

[HooptieWagon]

26. There probably is no gunpowder residue on clothes.

Brown had gunshot wounds on arms and head. He was wearing a short-sleeved T-shirt, so little possibility of gunpowder residue on it, no matter the range. He was also wearing a ball-cap. Its unknown if the cap was still in place during the head shots. However, the top of the head shot was determined to be the final, fatal, shot. This occurred at a distance of 20' to as much as 35'. Powder residue won't be present at that range.

If powder does turn up on clothes, it indicates a shot fired near the clothes that didn't hit Brown's body.