Was the story about Mike Brown’s blood in Darren Wilson’s vehicle selectively leaked

October 20, 2014

Monday, October 20, 2014

Good morning:

Questions surfaced yesterday regarding the sources of the New York Times article on Saturday that has been used to portray Mike Brown as the aggressor in his encounter with Officer Darren Wilson of the Ferguson Police Department. I wrote about the article, Michael Brown’s blood found on officer’s gun, uniform and interior panel of driver’s door.

I suspect the tip about Mike Brown’s blood may be true, however, I think it is a good example of selective leaking motivated by a desire to portray Mike Brown as the aggressor and discredit Dorian Johnson’s statement about the shooting.

As I pointed out yesterday, even if this information is true, it is consistent with Dorian Johnson’s statement that Wilson grabbed Mike Brown’s arm through the open window, pulled him to pin him against the door, drew his gun and shot him in the arm during the ensuing struggle.

Not only is the forensic evidence consistent with Dorian Johnson’s statement, it does not address the fundamental issue in the case; namely, did Darren Wilson shoot and kill Mike Brown after he stopped fleeing, turned around and raised his hands in the universally understood gesture of surrender?

Nevertheless, that did not stop the right-wing-message-machine from claiming that the forensic evidence proves Mike Brown was the aggressor and exculpates Darren Wilson.

The sources of information referenced in the article are not identified, except for this statement in the first paragraph, “according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.”

The second paragraph refers to “forensic tests conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

The eighth paragraph states that, “the account of Officer Wilson’s version of events did not come from the Ferguson Police Department or from officials whose activities are being investigated as part of the civil rights inquiry.”

Sometimes, you have to look at what is not said in order to discern the truth.

What was not said is whether the unnamed officials may be biased by virtue of relationship or continued employment by the “officials whose activities are being investigated as part of the civil rights inquiry.”

Given the absence of awareness that the forensic evidence is consistent with Dorian Johnson’s statement, I think we are seeing an example of selective leaking motivated by a desire to influence public opinion by portraying Darren Wilson as the victim.

I suspect the leak was planned and is a good example of what the grand jury is being told and how it will be manipulated to conclude that Darren Wilson should not be charged with a crime.

No indictment would be a crime because none of the eyewitness statements can be reasonably interpreted to support a conclusion that Officer Darren Wilson was in imminent danger of death or serious injury when he fired the fatal shots.

We continue to wait for justice in Ferguson and we are losing patience.

If you appreciate what we do, please consider making a donation.


Michael Brown’s blood found on officer’s gun, uniform and interior panel of driver’s door

October 18, 2014

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Good morning:

The New York Times is reporting today that Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson “told investigators two months ago that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.”

He told them that Brown reached for his gun during a scuffle inside his police vehicle. Two shots were fired. The first shot hit Brown in the arm. The second shot missed.

Forensic testing has determined that Brown’s blood was found on the gun, Wilson’s uniform and the interior panel on the driver’s door.

Wilson claimed that Brown “punched and scratched him repeatedly leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.”

Even if we assume that Wilson’s statement is true, that does not mean the subsequent shooting outside the vehicle was justified.

The applicable legal rule: a police officer may pursue a fleeing felon and shoot him, if he refuses to stop and the officer reasonably believes that he presents a danger to others. However, he cannot use deadly force, if the suspect stops and surrenders to his authority by raising his hands. If the suspect approaches him, he can only use deadly force, if he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured.

The imminent-danger requirement is the key issue to resolving this case and the answer depends on their relative size, the distance between them, and how fast Brown was moving toward him as well as how he was moving (i.e., running toward the officer versus stumbling and falling forward after being shot).

The officer’s statement to the federal investigators does not answer these questions.

We know that Brown’s body was found 95 feet from the officer’s vehicle, not 35 feet as claimed by the police chief.

Independent eyewitnesses have described an execution, so I see no reason why the grand jury has not indicted Darren Wilson for murder.

If you appreciate what we do, please consider making a donation.

Thank you


Terror on American Soil: 66 Days and Counting

October 13, 2014

Monday, October 13, 2014

Good morning:

Welcome to Day 4 of Ferguson October, the weekend we will long remember.

Terror on American soil: 66 days ago Officer Darren Wilson executed Michael Brown at noon Saturday on a quiet street in Ferguson, Missouri in front of many witnesses.

He was not arrested and he has not been indicted.

This is inexcusable and unacceptable.

The real terrorists in this country wear uniforms and carry a badge.

66 days and counting.


Police officer shot in #Ferguson last night

September 28, 2014

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Good morning:

A police officer was shot in the arm last night in Ferguson while investigating a possible burglary at a community center. The shooter was one of two suspects who fled the scene evading arrest. The shooting does not appear to be related to the protests and the officer was not seriously injured.

For more information, go here.

In case you missed it, Ferguson policed chief, Tom Jackson’s apology to the citizens of Ferguson for his butchery of the Michael Brown investigation was scornfully rejected and his effort to march with the protesters Thursday night provoked loud objections, some pushing and shoving and a few arrests.

So I am nominating Chief Jackson for a Darwin Award.

Some people really are too stupid to pour piss out of a boot.

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on the St. Louis County prosecutor’s effort to prevent the grand jury from indicting Officer Darren Wilson for murdering Michael Brown.

The whole world is watching.


Two new eyewitnesses to Michael Brown shooting refute bull-rush scenario

September 9, 2014


LLMPapa video

Tuesday, September, 9, 2014

Good morning:

The New York Daily News is reporting that two new eyewitnesses to the Michael Brown shooting have confirmed what other eyewitnesses have said.

The two eyewitnesses are important because they did not know Brown, reside in Ferguson or have family there.

They witnessed the shooting while working outside on a construction project at one of the apartment buildings that line the street where Michael was killed. They heard a single shot, looked up and saw Michael Brown running.

The first eyewitness said,

As the teen ran another shot was fired, according to the witness who spoke to the Post-Dispatch. The teen then stumbled and stopped, as if wounded, and put his hands in the air.

” ‘OK, OK, OK, OK, OK,’ ” the man recounted Brown’s words while turning to face Wilson, whose weapon was drawn.

Brown allegedly then moved while keeping his hands in the air.

“He’s kind of walking back toward the cop,” the witness told the paper.

Like Wilson, Brown moved too, he said. The officer took several steps back and opened fire.

The witness said Brown was shot three times before he began to drop his arms and move toward Wilson. He said the teen managed to get about 25 feet toward the officer.

“I don’t know if he was going after him or if he was falling down to die,” he told the paper. “It wasn’t a bull-rush.”

The second eyewitness said the officer never said anything to Michael Brown before he ran after him and unleashed a barrage of shots.

“At first his gun was down and then he … got about 8 to 10 feet away from him … I heard six, seven shots … it seemed like seven. Then he put his gun down. That’s when Michael stumbled forward. I’d say about 25 feet or so and then fell right on his face,” the co-worker told the station.

Although these statements describe movement by the officer and Brown, they are consistent with the results of Dr. Baden’s autopsy and do not support the bull-rush scenario provided on Facebook by a female friend of the officer who presumably repeated what he told her.

No eyewitness saw Michael Brown rush the officer. Every eyewitness describes an execution.

We are witnessing a continuing disgrace that the officer has not been arrested and charged with murder.


#Ferguson: Darren Wilson’s prearrest silence may be admissible

August 23, 2014

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Good afternoon:

BettyKath asked the following question in the comments to yesterday’s post, Grand Jury should indict Darren Wilson because his claim of self-defense is contradicted by autopsy results and all eyewitnesses.

Didn’t the Supreme Court rule that maintaining silence before the Miranda warning, i.e. before being arrested, can be interpreted as a sign of guilt?

This is an excellent question regarding the admissibility of prearrest silence and my answer is the subject of today’s blog.

Yes, prearrest silence can be interpreted as evidence of guilt unless the suspect/defendant specifically invokes his fifth amendment right to remain silent. In Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (1980), the defendant did not report the killing to the police until he turned himself in to police two weeks later. He told them that he stabbed the victim to death in self-defense. At trial, the prosecutor cross examined him regarding his failure to report the killing and to claim self-defense when it happened. He also commented on his silence in closing argument claiming that it was evidence of guilt.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) affirmed his conviction rejecting his argument that the comments on his prearrest silence violated his fifth amendment right to remain silent. The Court held that his silence was admissible because a defendant must expressly claim his right to remain silent for it to apply.

See also Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013).

Pursuant to Jenkins and Salinas, Wilson’s failure to fill out the incident report (i.e., his silence) will be admissible against him at trial unless he expressly refused to do so citing his fifth amendment right to remain silent.

Apparently, he did not do that because the cover sheet is filled out, but the section where his narrative report should be is blank.

If he orally invoked his right to remain silent when he turned in his blank incident report, his prearrest silence will not be admissible.

In any event, the prosecutor doesn’t have to comment on Wilson’s silence to get an indictment because, as I stated yesterday, he can obtain it by merely calling the eyewitnesses and presenting the autopsy report.

Although Wilson’s prearrest silence will not be admissible at trial, assuming he expressly invoked his right to remain silent, we also have to consider whether his oral statements to others that he shot in self-defense will be admissible.

No, they are not admissible because they constitute inadmissible self-serving hearsay.

That leaves Darren Wilson between a rock and a hard place.

He must testify in order to get his ‘bum-rush’ defense into evidence and a self-defense instruction. However, if he testifies, none of the eyewitnesses saw a ‘bum rush’ and if he tells a different story, he can be confronted with his ‘bum rush’ story.

Not an enviable situation to be in even with $225,000 in donations for his defense.

If you appreciate what we do, please make a donation.

Thank you,

Fred


Grand Jury should indict Darren Wilson because his claim of self-defense is contradicted by autopsy results and all eyewitnesses

August 22, 2014

Friday, August 22, 2014

Good afternoon:

The St. Louis County grand jury should indict Darren Wilson because the results of the independent autopsy and all of the eyewitnesses contradict his reported claim of self-defense and he has asserted his fifth amendment right to remain silent by refusing to fill out an incident report regarding the shooting.

Game within the Game

Darren Wilson has obviously been discussing his legal predicament with an attorney. As a result of that discussion, he decided not to fill out an incident report on the ground that his statement might tend to incriminate him.

That was a smart but risky move.

Smart because he has a fifth amendment right to remain silent and the members of the grand jury cannot assume that his silence is an admission of guilt.

Risky because he is the only witness who would testify that he shot Mike Brown in self-defense. All of the eyewitnesses have described a murder, not a justifiable homicide in self-defense. Therefore, if he does not testify, the grand jury will have little choice except to indict him for murder.

He could go for the brass ring by agreeing to testify before the grand jury, but he would lock himself into a story by doing so and could still be indicted for murder because his story is contradicted by all of the eyewitnesses.

Recall that the grand jury need only find that there is probable cause to believe that he was not in imminent danger of death or serious injury when he shot an unarmed Mike Brown multiple times, including twice in the head, killing him.

Yee olde bum-rush defense ain’t got no legs since none of the eyewitnesses saw Mike Brown rush the officer and his body was found right where he stopped and turned around to face the officer, 35 feet from the police vehicle.

Looks like he has decided to forgo testifying before the grand jury, in essence conceding that he will be indicted.

He’s in a very difficult situation, but I think he made the right choice.

Don’t forget that his lawyer could not be present, if he testified before the grand jury. There’s danger in them thar hills.

Meanwhile, he can derive comfort from the news today that people have contributed more than $225,000 for his defense at his beg-site.

Meanwhile, the racist right-wing-hate-machine marches on engaging in non-stop victim character assassination by lie and constant media repetition of the racist yee olde bum-rush defense in the court of public opinion until everybody forgets that Mike Brown was executed for jaywalking.

Welcome to Zimmerman II.


Governor Nixon should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the #MikeBrown shooting in #Ferguson

August 22, 2014

Friday, August 22, 2014

Good morning:

For the following reasons, I believe Governor Nixon should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Mike Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri.

Given recent developments, we can conclude that there are now reasonable grounds to believe that the Ferguson Police Department is engaged in a conspiracy to tamper with evidence and obstruct justice in order to prevent the prosecution of Officer Darren Wilson for the crime of first degree murder.

Based on the accounts of multiple eyewitnesses to the shooting and the results of the independent autopsy conducted by Dr. baden and Professor Shawn Parcells, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the officer,

(1) pursued an unarmed Mike Brown, who was running away after an argument regarding walking in the street instead of on the sidewalk, and

(2) executed Mike Brown after he stopped, turned around and was surrendering to his authority.

We now know that the Ferguson Police Department has promoted two lies in an attempt to justify the shooting.

The first lie was that Mike Brown committed a strong-arm robbery to obtain Swisher Sweet cigarillos from a convenience store without paying for them. A portion of a store video showing Brown pushing a clerk was released by the department to support this claim. However, the store never reported a robbery, denies that a robbery occurred, and the remainder of the tape shows that he paid for the cigarillos.

The second lie advanced by the department was that Brown had punched the officer in the side of the face fracturing the orbital socket of the officer’s right eye while the officer was still seated in his vehicle.

My theory all along has been that the door hit Wilson in the face as he was attempting to get out. Vehicle doors are curved inward at the top and they have door stops so that they do not swing all the way open or closed, unless pushed.

I know from personal experience that if I park on an incline and do not open the door to the first stop, it will swing back toward the closed position and bump me in the head as I’m trying to get out.

I suspect the door hit Wilson in the head with a little help from Brown or Johnson after it hit them when Wilson opened it and attempted to get out. I doubt they applied anything more than defensive force to prevent being struck by the door.

If Mike Brown had punched Wilson, I would have expected to see some evidence of bruising or skinned knuckles to his hand, but Dr. Baden and Professor Parcells did not mention any injuries to his hands except for the deep bullet-graze to the palm of his right hand just below the thumb.


#MikeBrown did not “bum rush” the Ferguson police officer

August 20, 2014

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Good morning:

LLMPapa is back!

He has a unique way of getting to the truth in a heartbeat and in this video he exposes the lie that Michael Brown stopped suddenly after running 35 feet away from the officer’s vehicle, turned and “bum rushed” him.

According to his girlfriend, the officer fired but Brown “kept coming and coming.” The officer kept shooting and the last shot to Brown’s forehead finally put him down.

Brown must have been running in place because his body was found 35 feet away from the vehicle.

The officer executed Mike Brown and lied about it to his girlfriend.

The District Attorney for St.Louis County will be presenting evidence about this shooting to a grand jury today. He is going to have some ‘splainin’ to do do, if the grand jury does not indict Officer Darren Wilson for the murder of Mike Brown.

Thank you, Papa, and welcome back.


Eyewitness to #MikeBrown shooting in #Ferguson describes what she saw

August 19, 2014

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Good morning:

Piaget Crenshaw witnessed the encounter between Officer Darren Wilson and Mike Brown. After the shooting, she took about 30 seconds to retrieve her phone from her apartment and began recording the scene. You can see Brown’s body laying in the street. Wilson and another police officer are standing in the street a few feet beyond it. He is on the right, apparently upset and gesturing with his hands as he talks to the other officer.

She described what she witnessed as follows.

Wilson appeared to be attempting to pull Brown into his vehicle, but Brown eluded his grasp and started running away.

Wilson got out of his vehicle and ran after him firing his gun several times.

She is aware of Dr. Baden’s autopsy report because she mentions it and says Brown stopped and turned around after one of the bullets grazed his arm.

Wilson unleashed a volley of shots and Brown fell to the ground.

She does not mention him moving toward Wilson or raising his hands.

She also does not mention Dorian Johnson. She might not have seen him because he said he hid behind a parked car.

She does say multiple times that what she witnessed was “not right” because Brown was unarmed.


%d bloggers like this: