From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_e98a4ce0-c284-57c9-9882-3fb7df75fef6.html#.VEcXQFLUqWk.twitter
The official autopsy on Michael Brown shows that he was shot in the hand at close range, according to an analysis of the findings by two experts not involved directly in the case.
...
A source with knowledge of [Ofcr. Darren] Wilson’s statements said the officer had told investigators that Brown had struggled for Wilson’s pistol inside a police SUV and that Wilson had fired the gun twice, hitting Brown once in the hand. Later, Wilson fired additional shots that killed Brown and ignited a national controversy.
The St. Louis medical examiner, Dr. Michael Graham, who is not part of the official investigation, reviewed the autopsy report for the newspaper. He said Tuesday that it “does support that there was a significant altercation at the car.”
Graham said the examination indicated a shot traveled from the tip of Brown’s right thumb toward his wrist. The official report notes an absence of stippling, powder burns around a wound that indicate a shot fired at relatively short range.
But Graham said, “Sometimes when it’s really close, such as within an inch or so, there is no stipple, just smoke.” ["Smoke?" That whole statement is wrong. You see stippling or powder tattooing on the skin around a gunshot wound when a shot is close-range. In a contact wound the gunshot residue goes into the wound.]
The report on a supplemental microscopic exam of tissue from the thumb wound showed foreign matter “consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm.” [That is what you would find. That is consistent with a contact wound.]
Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.” ["In the wound." That is correct. And that evidence would "support the fact" that Brown was reaching for Wilson's gun.] She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.” [That is a step too far.]
Sources told the Post-Dispatch that Brown’s blood had been found on Wilson’s gun.
Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.
She said Brown was facing Wilson when Brown took a shot to the forehead, two shots to the chest and a shot to the upper right arm. The wound to the top of Brown’s head would indicate he was falling forward or in a lunging position toward the shooter; the shot was instantly fatal.
A sixth shot that hit the forearm traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm, which means Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said. That trajectory shows Brown probably was not taking a standard surrender position with arms above the shoulders and palms out when he was hit, she said. [Dr. Melinek is not quoted here and I am not going to take the reporter's summary of what she said. I would need to see the autopsy report and the body diagram and then hear Melinek's exact statement. I will say that medical examiners do not say evidence "means" one shooting scenario is correct, they will say that their findings are "consistent" with a proffered scenario. Medical examiners are particularly reluctant to go there with a part of the body that is so movable, like, as here, an arm.]
That post mortem, conducted the morning after Brown’s death, comports in most ways with the findings of a private autopsy arranged by Brown’s family and made public Aug. 18.
In that one, Dr. Michael M. Baden, a nationally known forensic pathologist, said none of Brown’s wounds appeared to have been from shots fired at close range. [Baden's autopsy findings and the findings of the official autopsy are diametrically opposed on the crucial issue of the range of fire.]
Baden noted then that there was no gunshot residue on the body, so it appeared to him that the muzzle of the weapon was at least one or two feet away. He said, “It could have been 30 feet away.”[Correct, unless it was a contact wound in which case you wouldn't see gunshot residue on the body, you would find it in the body, along the wound track, which they did according to the above.]
...
The official autopsy also confirmed that tissue from Brown was found on the exterior of the driver’s side of Wilson’s vehicle.
“Someone got an injury that tore off skin and left it on the car,” Graham said. “That fits with everything else that came out. There’s blood in the car, now skin on the car, that shows something happened right there.” [That is what that would mean.]
The official autopsy on Michael Brown shows that he was shot in the hand at close range, according to an analysis of the findings by two experts not involved directly in the case.
...
A source with knowledge of [Ofcr. Darren] Wilson’s statements said the officer had told investigators that Brown had struggled for Wilson’s pistol inside a police SUV and that Wilson had fired the gun twice, hitting Brown once in the hand. Later, Wilson fired additional shots that killed Brown and ignited a national controversy.
The St. Louis medical examiner, Dr. Michael Graham, who is not part of the official investigation, reviewed the autopsy report for the newspaper. He said Tuesday that it “does support that there was a significant altercation at the car.”
Graham said the examination indicated a shot traveled from the tip of Brown’s right thumb toward his wrist. The official report notes an absence of stippling, powder burns around a wound that indicate a shot fired at relatively short range.
But Graham said, “Sometimes when it’s really close, such as within an inch or so, there is no stipple, just smoke.” ["Smoke?" That whole statement is wrong. You see stippling or powder tattooing on the skin around a gunshot wound when a shot is close-range. In a contact wound the gunshot residue goes into the wound.]
The report on a supplemental microscopic exam of tissue from the thumb wound showed foreign matter “consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm.” [That is what you would find. That is consistent with a contact wound.]
Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.” ["In the wound." That is correct. And that evidence would "support the fact" that Brown was reaching for Wilson's gun.] She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.” [That is a step too far.]
Sources told the Post-Dispatch that Brown’s blood had been found on Wilson’s gun.
Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.
She said Brown was facing Wilson when Brown took a shot to the forehead, two shots to the chest and a shot to the upper right arm. The wound to the top of Brown’s head would indicate he was falling forward or in a lunging position toward the shooter; the shot was instantly fatal.
A sixth shot that hit the forearm traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm, which means Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said. That trajectory shows Brown probably was not taking a standard surrender position with arms above the shoulders and palms out when he was hit, she said. [Dr. Melinek is not quoted here and I am not going to take the reporter's summary of what she said. I would need to see the autopsy report and the body diagram and then hear Melinek's exact statement. I will say that medical examiners do not say evidence "means" one shooting scenario is correct, they will say that their findings are "consistent" with a proffered scenario. Medical examiners are particularly reluctant to go there with a part of the body that is so movable, like, as here, an arm.]
That post mortem, conducted the morning after Brown’s death, comports in most ways with the findings of a private autopsy arranged by Brown’s family and made public Aug. 18.
In that one, Dr. Michael M. Baden, a nationally known forensic pathologist, said none of Brown’s wounds appeared to have been from shots fired at close range. [Baden's autopsy findings and the findings of the official autopsy are diametrically opposed on the crucial issue of the range of fire.]
Baden noted then that there was no gunshot residue on the body, so it appeared to him that the muzzle of the weapon was at least one or two feet away. He said, “It could have been 30 feet away.”[Correct, unless it was a contact wound in which case you wouldn't see gunshot residue on the body, you would find it in the body, along the wound track, which they did according to the above.]
...
The official autopsy also confirmed that tissue from Brown was found on the exterior of the driver’s side of Wilson’s vehicle.
“Someone got an injury that tore off skin and left it on the car,” Graham said. “That fits with everything else that came out. There’s blood in the car, now skin on the car, that shows something happened right there.” [That is what that would mean.]
