A former Missouri police chief is publicly saying that the Justice Department is actively leaking reports that it has found insufficient evidence to support federal charges against Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. There is certainly a long and controversial history of the Justice Department leaking stories to the media to pressure targets or to prepare the public in otherwise secret or confidential investigations. While threatening witnesses and others over any disclosures, the Justice Department does not hesitate to make such leaks for political purposes. The question is whether the recent uptick in leaks is such a campaign. There has been an increase in such stories coming from unnamed Justice sources and former St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch says that the evidence has supported the officer on a number of points, including a struggle within the cruiser.
Fitch says that the Administration is seeking to “coordinate leaks to the media, and to start getting some of the facts out there to kind of let people down slowly” because they have concluded that charges are “probably very unlikely.”
While he is not required to appear before the grand jury and the vast majority of targets do not appear on advice of counsel, Wilson appeared for hours. The New York Times reports that he gave an account of a struggle inside of the car and a sharply different account from the statement of Michael Brown’s friend, including an autopsy that says that Brown was shot at close range consistent with the officer’s account. The Times reports that forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Wilson also reportedly has photos of injuries to his face and neck following the struggle.
There are many who believe that the Obama Administration is signaling that no charges will come from the investigation — with many preparing for the possible unrest and violence that may follow such an announcement.
Source: CBS
trooperyork, “choked out” uh, is that the new definition for a push? The rather small store clerk didn’t seem to fear for his life but the much bigger cop did. It was the cop that initiated the altercation by back up and aggressively stopping so close to the young men that he slammed his door into Michael who pushed back.
bettykath – you were there so you know exactly what happened to Michael Brown, or are you relying on inconsistent eye-witness accounts?
This happened on October 2, 2014
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Zijhi4IV4&w=560&h=315%5D
Three “youtes” were involved.
That is not why they refer to him as a “kid.” It is to manipulate the facts. I am sure the store owner he choked out ten minutes before he attacked the cop didn’t consider him a kid.
Besides the technical term for describing criminals when you want to conceal their age and their race is “youtes.”
trpperyork – at Michael Brown’s age he can vote, sign contracts and enlist in the military. I would say he was an adult thug based on his recorded behavior with the store owner. He is also automatically tried as an adult.
Why do you refer to Mike Brown as a “kid”?
Because I am 46, and anyone under age 25, to me, is a kid.
JH – I am somewhat older than you and I noticed that I started referring to the cops as kids. 😉
Why do you refer to Mike Brown as a “kid”?
Age 18. Since “children” can be on their parent’s health insurance until age 25 and they are classified as children and treated like children maybe someone 18 is still a kid. In addition the big hoo hah was about poor gentle giant Michael’s teenager status.
On the other hand if you consider 18 the age of majority and he is no longer a child then he is an adult and lost his protection as a juvenile.
SO which way do YOU want it to be. An adult. A grown man? Or young vulnerable teenager kid.?
You can’t have it both ways you know.
JH,
I pointed out that you were wrong. Don’t like that? The answer is to post accurate information.
Maybe pictures were not taken at the scene due to the volatile crowd that had formed. Maybe it was determined that it would be best to take the pictures of Wilson back at the station, or at the hospital prior to him being cleaned up.
I don’t know. None of us do. The volatility of the scene would have surely been a determining factor, as would the extent of the injuries.
They may have taken pictures of Wilson at the scene. I don’t know, but there are a number of good reasons to wait until the officer was not on the scene.
Why do you refer to Mike Brown as a “kid”?
Paragraphs are our friends. (H.L. Mencken)
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Jack. You’ve harped on one sentence while completely ignoring the other 90% of the post that does not fit with your preconceived notions. Congratulations! You have the makings of a fine politician. The point is.. Everybody… and I do mean everybody. Knows there was some altercation at the vehicle. This is not news.. this is not any sort of game changing evidence. So a bullet was fired at close range. Blood was found in the SUV, on the officers clothes, and on the gun. What.. other than what is already known, does this conclusively prove? Not a damn thing.. It is still very much open to interpretation one way or the other. If someone is sitting in a vehicle. Grabs someone outside the vehicle with one hand, and has a gun in the other. The person outside the vehicle is going to struggle to get free.. turn the weapon away from their direction, and/or take the weapon, and remove the threat. What is telling.. At least to me.. The ferguson PD has not released any photo’s or reports of the supposed injuries Wilson received . They say He had serious swelling on his face. They say. He had cuts, and bruises.. Where are the pictures!? Look at Mike Ramos in the Kelly Thomas incident. He had an abrasion on his elbow. There are pictures of it. Written reports of it.. Taken on scene.. not taken at the hospital.. Not taken the next day.. or days later to get in line with his narrative.. On scene, right then, and there. Or the altercation between Megan Graham, and Justin Antholt.. officer antholt had the smallest scratch on the side of his neck.. so small even in the photos you can barely see it.. but that does not matter.. They took photos, on scene, and documented it anyways.. Because they have to!, for litigation purposes. So where are the pictures of officer Darren Wilson that should have been taken on scene?! The bottom line is this.. It is easy, and not at all out of the realm of possibility for me to imagine, and officer shooting a kid.. Discovering the kid was unarmed. Realizing he just caused a major screwup. Talking with the higher up’s on how to proceed, coming up with a plausible narrative.. Heck.. maybe he even had a couple fellow offcers give him a few punches to the face just to take some pics as supposed evidence. That sure beats a possible prison sentence. All the while banking that no one would care, or be smart enough to understand the significance of those pictures being taken a day or so later. So again.. I want to see the evidence pictures that were taken at the scene, and on that day, and until I do so.. Anything I hear out of the ferguson PD is just propaganda, spin, and hyperbole.
It’s just the DOJ laying the foundation for some major last minute race baiting to turn out the black vote. This, from Salon:
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/22/georgia_dems_invoke_ferguson_in_election_plea/
Yes, the Democrats are doing Lester Maddox and George Wallace proud!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
SWM, that may be the case, and it is all the more reason why this case needed careful consideration, not inflammatory comments at the outset. Those comments by the President served absolutely no one, not even the family of the victim.
The town of Ferguson was not in very good shape before this. Whether or not, Darren Wilson is indicted, and it looks like he won’t be, does not change the fact that the Ferguson police dept has a history of civil rights violations.
Gaaah. Proofread before posting 🙁
I wish that everyone would have the attitude of let’s watch this investigation very closely, make sure it’s done fairly, and we will discuss the results and come to a rational conclusion.
@ Karen.
Very well said. That would be the rational thing to do.
Instead, just like in the Trayvon Martin case, people went off without any real information and armchair quarterbacked the situation. Using their own preconceived prejudices and agendas. Nevermind waiting for an investigation. Nevermind the facts. Even now people refuse to accept the facts of the case or the decision by the jury. If it doesn’t fit into your bias….ignore it.
Politicians and race hustlers couldn’t wait to make themselves a part of the incident for their own profit and advancement. Obama using inflammatory language to increase the tensions instead of calling for calm and encouraging people to wait until the facts are know.
As a result, people’s lives and business are destroyed. The town of Ferguson will never recover from this. Neither will the psyche of the United State. Incidents like this are terrible for the actual participants. The blow up out of proportion to the incident just further increases the divisions between people and inflames racial tension. I believe that this is the actual goal of some people who capitalize on these events.
” ‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first – verdict afterwards.’ “
Truer words were never spoken, Darren.
In part various politicians jumped on the bandwagon of those who were convinced and made numerous public statements insisting this incident was racial in nature and that the officer should be imprisoned before they even considered the totality of the investigation.
There is a lot of face that is going to be lost by some because they invested much in a particular outcome and if the grand jury does not issue a true bill they might either hope the matter goes quietly away or their next step will be to declare there has been a miscarriage of justice by a corrupt system. The latter argument is going to be difficult to make convincing when the Justice Department provided a large investigative team and the evidence might not be sufficient to indict.
Annie, back to her usual misrepresentation, lacking the ability to respond substantively to my query, which was clear:
Why did Obama say those words at that time, when it could only inflame an already angry crowd?
Because it would inflame an already angry crowd.