Who was the witness?
My favorite part of that video is when he never said "but he kept coming toward him."
Who was the witness?
No I point to facts and offer up my opinions based on those facts.
Baden did the autopsy . Baden will testify.From your link:
However, that’s something of a dubious title according to forensic pathologist Dr. Erik Mitchell.
“That is a degree that does not exist in my knowledge, except in the mind of Shawn Parcells,” Dr. Mitchell said.
Dr. Mitchell takes issue with Parcells’ title.
“You cannot claim the title, because it is a formal, licensable position. You can assist somebody; in this way I can say, for instance, I have paid my taxes, so I am an assistant President of the United States,” Dr. Mitchell said.
Parcells admits he has no certification as a pathology assistant, but says his qualification comes from experience.
“I worked there as a forensic assistant for about a year. And if I remember correctly that was 2005 to 2006. That was under Dr. Young,” Parcells said.
That’s Dr. Thomas Young, the former Jackson County Medical Examiner.
“And that’s honestly where I gained a lot of my experience,” Parcells said.
Parcells says his training began in 1997 when he interned with Dr. Young, until he was hired in the mid-2000’s.
Dr. Young responded with this statement:
“Shawn hung out at the Jackson County Medical Examiner’s office but was not trained by me.”…. “He has been representing himself in a way that is not appropriate by giving forensic pathology opinions when he is not qualified to do so.”
“He has none of the qualifications that are required. He has experience as a morgue technician, somebody who would move bodies around, clean up after an autopsy,” Dr. Mitchell said.
Um, woah. That guy will be eaten alive by the Defense Attorneys if he is presented at trial as a witness for the Prosecution.
I believe the evidence is against Wilson. The three second gap may cost him his freedom.
We dont, but it probably is. Nobody would intentionally stage the ridiculous web-cam stripper conversation. It could be from a real, unrelated shooting, but there is also someone on the other end of the web cam, IP records, records from the video chat service, etc.We don!t even know if the audio is legit.
but there is also someone on the other end of the web cam, IP records, records from the video chat service, etc.
Baden did the autopsy . Baden will testify.
I heard the janitor that cleaned the lab the night before didn't have a medical license either. Allegedly.Yup, I get that. But weren't we taking about Parcells?
We dont, but it probably is. Nobody would intentionally stage the ridiculous web-cam stripper conversation. It could be from a real, unrelated shooting, but there is also someone on the other end of the web cam, IP records, records from the video chat service, etc.
Being "shot from behind" is not inconsistent with being "shot in the back".
If you saw someone walking away from another who was shooting a pistol at them and you saw that someone jerk their body with one of the gunshots.You would describe what you saw as someone shot in the back.
It's not pointing to an anatomical location so much it is a description of the way a coward would try to kill.
People are already calling bull****...at CNN!
Two legal guests tell CNN their Brown shooting audio might be a hoax « Hot Air
Not to mention, CNN admitted the audio can't be verified AND the audio didn't follow the rules of evidence.
Look. didn't the eye witness say Brown was shot in the back. He didn't say shot from behind. Also, show me where I am misinformed. What has been released by the medical examers is all entry wounds were from the front and not the back.
Like I said. Witness testimony must be backed up with other evidence.
Unless you have interviewed the witness, your explanation is opinon.
Wait for the investigation report to come out.
(your example reminds me of stuff on the CT sites where a witness said they heard an explosion in a building fire. To the CT people explosions = explosives).
"The eye witness"? There are numerous eye witnesses. The fact that they saw/heard shots being fired with Brown's back turned and mistakenly concluded that he was hit does not discredit their accounts. It's a perfectly natural conclusion to go from "shots fired at someone" to "someone was shot."
Has anyone mentioned the fact that Dorian Johnson's account that Brown "was struck in the chest or upper region [by the first shot in the car] because I saw blood splatter down his side, his right area" is completely consistent with a number of the wounds shown on the autopsy sketch? Or does the fact that Johnson had committed a petty theft a few years ago and gave police a false age and slightly different first name mean that we throw out his entire testimony, in spite of evidence that supports it?
Has anyone mentioned the fact that Dorian Johnson's account that Brown "was struck in the chest or upper region [by the first shot in the car] because I saw blood splatter down his side, his right area" is completely consistent with a number of the wounds shown on the autopsy sketch? Or does the fact that Johnson had committed a petty theft a few years ago and gave police a false age and slightly different first name mean that we throw out his entire testimony, in spite of evidence that supports it?
And I suspect that would have come out by now.
Without more info, it seems unlikely. There would be blood - which would be very easy to determine - on the car or the cop. We haven't heard a thing about that.. And I suspect that would have come out by now.
"The eye witness"? There are numerous eye witnesses. The fact that they saw/heard shots being fired with Brown's back turned and mistakenly concluded that he was hit does not discredit their accounts. It's a perfectly natural conclusion to go from "shots fired at someone" to "someone was shot."
Has anyone mentioned the fact that Dorian Johnson's account that Brown "was struck in the chest or upper region [by the first shot in the car] because I saw blood splatter down his side, his right area" is completely consistent with a number of the wounds shown on the autopsy sketch? Or does the fact that Johnson had committed a petty theft a few years ago and gave police a false age and slightly different first name mean that we throw out his entire testimony, in spite of evidence that supports it?
You think they were lying because they all thought he was shot in the back when it turns out those shots missed? Is seeing whether a bullet is lodged in a person's body the same as seeing whether someone runs 30 feet at full speed?The witnesses are wrong and their accounts aren't discredited?
I agree that there would be blood in or near the car if he did get shot there. However, I'm not sure if it would have come out yet. There are always parts of investigations that are not publicly released. And this particular piece of information wouldn't really help either way. It would just provide more material for people to speculate if it actually happened.
You think they were lying because they all thought he was shot in the back when it turns out those shots missed? Is seeing whether a bullet is lodged in a person's body the same as seeing whether someone runs 30 feet at full speed?
Yes. You know, because both the shooter and the target were moving. Ridiculous, right? Black people say the darnedest things [when providing eye witness accounts of a homicide].Is that the story? The back shots missed? :lamo
Has anyone mentioned the fact that Dorian Johnson's account that Brown "was struck in the chest or upper region [by the first shot in the car] because I saw blood splatter down his side, his right area" is completely consistent with a number of the wounds shown on the autopsy sketch? Or does the fact that Johnson had committed a petty theft a few years ago and gave police a false age and slightly different first name mean that we throw out his entire testimony, in spite of evidence that supports it?
And I suspect that would have come out by now.
Why is that?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1408/13/cnr.06.htmlDorian Johnson was singing like a bird of his first hand account of the situation, gave a full interview with CNN on tape and didn't bother to mention this so called "was struck in the chest or upper region [by the first shot in the car] because I saw blood splatter down his side, his right area". This would have made a bigger impact on his lies that Brown was shot in the back while holding his hands up, which also did not occur.
Do you have anything to back up, that Dorian Johnson's account that Brown "was struck in the chest or upper region [by the first shot in the car] because I saw blood splatter down his side, his right area" ?