Excellent post. The point about biases is very true...and NewYorkGuy's response to me above (thanks, NewYorkGuy) illustrates how those biases can come into play even in deliberations in a trial. That's why it's baffling to me when I hear Phantom etc exclaim that this case would have no prayer of conviction at trial. Well, of course it would have no prayer if all the jurors were supporters of Wilson. Half the battle in a trial is finding 'unbiased' jurors. Obviously, in the extreme reverse case, an all black jury made up of Ferguson residents may have looked at the evidence differently. So there's no 'guaranty' of a result in a trial. The best we can do is try to ensure that the process is as fair as possible. I don't think that was the case here.
For me it's because I have faith that most Juries are willing to look at the evidence and judge the case on that, not on biased emotions that have nothing to do with what actually happened.
The Physical Evidence doesn't lie, and the scene and the autopsies (all three of them) tell a story of their own. Even if we totally ignore every speck of eye witness testimony and just look at the physical evidence we start to get a story develop.
We have blood and tissue from Brown inside the car, and a near contact wound in Brown's hand the bullet exiting higher in the arm.
We have two shell cases in or near the car.
We have a cluster of shell casings 100-150 feet down the road
We have an audio recording of the shots, 6 rapid, a pause for about a second, and then four more rapid shots.
We have a clear blood trail that shoes that Brown headed away from the vehicle, and then turned and came back towards it.
We have the path of three bullets that were lodged in Brown's head and torso showing that his head and torso where pointed towards the shooter at the time he was hit.
We have a through and through wound to Brown's arm showing that his arm was not in front of his head at the time that bullet struck him
We have a grazing shot that indicates the same
I'd love to see a chart of the wounds because the direction of the bullet wounds to the arms would confirm and lot of things.
We have the position of the body when it fell, with the arms down at his side, not up above his head.
We have Brown's shoes and the spacing of the blood drops indicating he was running
We know that Brown covered 15-20 feet in a matter of seconds under fire based on the turning point, the time take to fire the final 10 shots, and his body position.
Why do we need eye witnesses? The physical evidence by itself pretty much tells us all we need to know, and it has no biases and doesn't lie.
I think the evidence could be presented in ways to favor either side. I would have liked to have seen a vigorous debate in court rather than a one-sided charade.
