Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did answer your questions. You just don't like the answers. So here we go again:
YOU: How does the physical evidence support Wilson if there was no DNA from Wilson on the back of Brown's hands?
THE VOICE OF REASON: The physical evidence of Wilson's injuries support his testimony of being assaulted by Brown.
YOU: How does Brown attack Wilson wildly with a bloody right hand and not get blood on Wilson's uniform??
THE VOICE OF REASON: There was Brown's blood on Wilson's uniform. And in the car. And on the gun.
YOU: How was Wilson's uniform neat and not tarnished if Brown is attacking him wildly and pulling on his shirt?
THE VOICE OF REASON: Again, there was blood on Wilson's uniform.
1) There's barely a scratch on Wilson and the slight discoloration could be self inflicted. It's not conclusive so please stop using that argument.
(Chuckcity: Can't use injuries as an argument. Noted)
2) There was not a SIGNIFICANT amount of blood on Wilson. You could not even see the blood from the pictures of him right after the shooting.
There's also ZERO witness testimony to back up that statement. Even by the witnesses who were proven liars and the one who attempted to support Wilson's story.
3) That's not what I asked. If you look at the leaked pictures of Wilson RIGHT after the incident, it does NOT look like he was in a struggle at all. There is also no blood on his face which is where he claimed Brown hit him.
It does NOT prove that Wilson is telling the truth. It Does prove that Johnson is lying.
Nothing can prove Wilson is telling the 100% truth.
Lying or not giving the exact distance? There's a big difference.
You've provided no evidence that Johnson was lying about that part and you could not provide a distance of how far apart they were when the final shots were fired.
If you don't believe Wilson is telling the 100% truth there should be a trial. If he did no wrong, and really was attacked, there would be no reason to embellish. It would actually hurt his case rather than help.
No witness backed up key parts of Wilson's testimony. Zero. None. Zilch.
'Cut wounds bleed more than bullet wounds because the bullet goes in and the skin elasticity and the outermost tissue underneath it closes it up.'
Dr. Michael Baden testimony to Grand Jury
Gtownoe 'logic' vs Dr. Baden. Close call, but after for a nanosecond, I'll go with Baden.
In Wilson's own testimony he stated that after he saw the shot he saw glass breaking and blood. Those are his own words. An open wound, flailing about wildly is going to cause quite a bit of blood. Enough to leave good size stains on Wilson's uniform.
I've stated that Brown COULD have just used his left hand at that point, but I also explained how difficult that would be.
And I've also stated that ZERO witnesses back up that part of the story. Which likely means Wilson is lying about it.
Attacking someone after being shot is NOT a detail most witnesses would miss let alone ALL.
In Wilson's own testimony he stated that after he saw the shot he saw glass breaking and blood. Those are his own words. An open wound, flailing about wildly is going to cause quite a bit of blood. Enough to leave good size stains on Wilson's uniform.
I've stated that Brown COULD have just used his left hand at that point, but I also explained how difficult that would be.
And I've also stated that ZERO witnesses back up that part of the story. Which likely means Wilson is lying about it.
Attacking someone after being shot is NOT a detail most witnesses would miss let alone ALL.
How do you explain that? You can't.
But you STILL haven't explained how Wilson could sit in his vehicle, reach up and grab Brown, and choke his throat tightly.
But you STILL haven't explained how Wilson could sit in his vehicle, reach up and grab Brown, and choke his throat tightly.
How do you explain that? You haven't.
After all that I've done. You come up with that?
Go back through the thread. Read up. And when you finish, if you have any other questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
I just shredded Wilson's testimony, proved his testimony didn't match up to any witnesses', and showed how the physical evidence doesn't match up with his testimony.
How does the physical evidence support Wilson if there was no DNA from Wilson on the back of Brown's hands?
How does Brown attack Wilson wildly with a bloody right hand and not get blood on Wilson's uniform??
How was Wilson's uniform neat and not tarnished if Brown is attacking him wildly and pulling on his shirt?
Can you answer those questions?
Just to be precise, from what I can tell by reading the DNA report:
The palm of Michael Brown's left hand showed his DNA and another minor contributor, which could have included Wilson.
The DNA obtained from the back of Michael Brown's left hand, palm of Brown's right hand, and back of Brown's right hand were consistent with Brown's DNA. There was no other contributor of DNA, i.e. none of Wilson's DNA.
Fingernail scrapings from Michael Brown's left and right hand had none of Wilson's DNA.
There was Michael Brown's DNA on Wilson's gun, but that doesn't mean Brown reached for the gun. Wilson testified that his right hand, his shooting hand, was covered in Michael Brown's blood after shooting Brown in the hand, so it only makes sense that Brown's DNA would be on the gun.
That only confirms the distance Brown was shot. Not that he was going for the gun or had control of the gun.
Correct, but it is consistent with Wilson's version of events.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
They're not consistent with the extent of the assault as Wilson described. The forensics also aren't consistent with Brown punching Wilson wildly after being shot in the hand.
Says you. Any forensic scientists or others actually, you know, qualified to make that determination agree with you? Even if you're right, and Wilson is remembering the assault to be worse than it was, what's your point? You agree he was assaulted and punched in the face - you're just quibbling about how badly he was beaten.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
Multiple medical examiners have stated that is a scenario. They've also stated Brown could have been slumped forward or falling forward. Wilson is 6'4"
Again, consistent with Wilson's testimony. Doesn't prove his version is correct, but it's consistent with his story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
It does not mean he charged Wilson.
No, but it supports the claim that he did. Are you noticing a pattern here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
That doesn't prove anything
It. Doesn't. Need. To. That's the whole point! The proof needs to go the other direction - proving he's guilty. There is no requirement to prove his innocence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
There. I disputed all your points. Before moving on with OUR conversation, let's stick to what you just brought up. If I'm wrong, lets debate that.
Yes, you "disputed" all those points. I've shown you above why/how you're wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
for a nanosecond, I'll go with Baden.
