If I may…. The news is fixated on the autopsies in the Brown case, because the powder deposits on the hand (which indicate a shot fired from inches away) have now been cleaned, and a repeat of that experiment can no longer be performed. THIS is the focus of the representatives of the family. Theyve asked for the tissue from the experiment. Theyre clearly planning to dispute this particular point, that Brown was hit in the hand while grabbing at the gun. But can we also remember, and mention in news stories about this, that Browns blood is in the car, on the officers uniform, and on the gun? How does THIS happen if the events did not unfold as the officer says? The residue is not the deciding factor; its only ONE of them. The blood itself is proof the hand injury happened in the car, and the gunshot residue in the car (along with the bullets) proves that the story played out as Wilson has told the grand jury. Brown reached into the car, whose door he was holding shut to prevent Wilson from getting out. Brown grabbed for the gun while punching Wilson, and Wilson managed to fire twice, one of the shots hitting Brown in the hand. Brown was hit in the hand. Thats because his hand was on the gun, trying to get it. If his hand has been cleaned by morgue workers and there is no more residue on it, does this change the story? None of his other gunshot wounds would have bled into the car, except perhaps the one arm injury. But even if it was THAT injury bleeding into the car, isnt the story the same? The fact that the morgue employees have cleaned the body is not a pivot point for this case. I wish news stories would mention that the blood is still in the car, on the gun and on the uniform. The lack of this info in stories is partly to blame for jacking up the potential for a riot; the stories seem to support, by omission, the idea that something is wrong with the case because the bodys been cleaned. /Perk out
Posted on: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 22:38:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015