This last piece on the investigation of Michael Brown’s death and subsequent grand jury appearance by Officer Darren Wilson has a sort of first part in this Post from yesterday that checks the incident’s facts with time line and not the narratives ; both work best if taken together.
http://definitivelapseofreason.com/2014/11/27/definitive-analysis-of-the-ferguson-grand-jury-decision/
Yesterday, we eschewed any considerations of judging the events that led to the death of Michael Brown other than facts and the recollections of Police Officer that shot him. It raised enough doubts to warrant and indictment ( not conviction afterwards necessarily by the way ). Today, as promised, we’ll offer a most impractical way to ensure that a narrative is not tainted by social issues. The media couldn’t not write like this routinely but it will show how mentions of race or sex or … affect the way a story is perceived. It is principally based on the excellent premiss that is the American legal principle according to which everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. With every step of the encounter treated by the Ferguson Grand Jury, we will reset our prejudice clock and over a choice of narrative to the unverifiable one we used yesterday. in other terms we will think about what Brown and Wilson were at the time and not who. All of which will raise questions regarding the relationship between the people and its police and close by pointing out why the solution is unlikely to be technological as in the officer-worn cameras that the parents of the victim would like to see become mandatory. ALL quotes are from Officer Darren Wilson’s testimony save those from Dorian Johnson in my perspective questions & answers until we reach at the need to mention his prior interview.
When our story begins, we know through Dorian Johnson that accompanied Michael Brown that there was pot/weed/marijuana involved and that Michael Brown stole some cigarillos from the Ferguson Market store. We, the public reflecting back, know that but at that point, Officer Wilson did not. Or did he? We will then begin in a Ferguson apartment with a sick child awaiting the ambulance.
“ … a call came out for a stealing in progress at the local market on West Florissant, that the suspects traveling towards QT. I didn’t hear the entire call, I was on my portable radio, which isn’t exactly the best. I did hear that the suspect was wearing a black shirt and that a box of cigarillos was stolen.” p.202 lines 12 to 18
So that to know if Officer Wilson was looking for a suspect or just inviting a citizen to behave properly less than 5 minutes later in the middle of Canfield Drive, we have to rely on his word. I would not have a problem with that except that if doubt can be raised it should have carried and indictment and it can : If he heard that much, how come he testifies that when the encounter with Brown and Johnson began :
“As I was going west on Canfield, I observed two men in the middle of the street, they are walking along the double yellow line single file order.” p. 206 line 25 and p. 207 lines 1 two 3.
He then proceeds to list what strikes him, in order, that cars have to go around the duo, the size differential between the individuals, the tall bright yellow socks with marijuana leaves worn by the big one and stops his patrol vehicle as they approach.
“As Johnson came around my driver’s side mirror I said “why don’t you guys walk on the sidewalk.” He kept walking and as he’s walking he said, “we are almost to our destination.” p. 208 lines 8 to 11.
Strangely, Dorian Johnson, knowing that he had been an involuntary part of a crime, having twice seen police cruisers and thought : “… wow, he called the police.” p.40 lines 2 and 3 seems casual about the immobile vehicle of Officer Wilson and just as strangely heard :
“Get the fuck on the sidewalk.” p. 45 line 20
Johnson’s answer fits the policeman’s recollection reasonably : “… just a minute away from our destination, I live in Canfield and we’ll be off the street closely.” p. 46 lines 12 to 14
Having only examined the encounter through its set-up, we already have a major discrepancy and need to be strict on terms in examining it.
If Officer Wilson recalls dress details from the call heard in the sick infant’s home at his grand jury testimony, how could he not 5 minutes later that day? If he doesn’t, he is addressing a citizen ( two in fact ) and how he speaks to them is important as indicative of his state of mind in the affair being probed. If he does, he is investigating a suspect which allows some leeway in expression ( some, not any ) but completely changes his perspective and does not fully coincide with his testimony anymore, both being sufficient to raise doubts and warrant a perjury charge if not an indictment. On the other side, Dorian Johnson describing a calm, cool and collected exchange despite the vulgarity of the Officer, while under stress at passing law enforcement for his unwilling participation in a larceny or robbery in another possible grand jury setting, sounds like an embellishment at the very least if not a lie, the first being part of what the hearing should check and the second forbidden outright under oath.
And every thing that follows depends on that.
If the cop pulls a suspect impolitely, I can live with that under some circumstances but not, never if it concerns a citizen, thus accosting them.
If the cop says please use the sidewalk, Michael Brown’s comment as he speaks next is utterly incorrect but here is the thing, Officer Wilson heard :
“fuck what you have to say.” p. 208 lines 23-24
and Johnson heard nothing : “Like I said, Big Mike never said anything when the officer pulled up on us.” p. 49 lines 9-10.
Right there, one of the two is lying! Or if the cop is believed once out of the two, depending on which you pick, either he fell into a trap or he is both deaf and hearing voices. I’d tend to think that both options would warrant some form of further investigation, wouldn’t you say?
Similarly, Brown’s answer ( just as the bullet from the rear of yesterday ) is much more logical if the cop was brusque.
Dialog A
-why don’t you guys walk on the sidewalk.
-just a minute away from our destination, I live in Canfield and we’ll be off the street closely.
-fuck what you have to say.
Dialog B
-Get the fuck on the sidewalk.
-we are almost to our destination.
– …
Dialog C
-Get the fuck on the sidewalk.
– – – either version of the same line above with Dorian Johnson careful to be smooth for the reasons we know – – –
-fuck what you have to say.
The latter is the most credible in my view but the discrepancies should have alerted the grand jury in any case. Rendering an opinion on non-corroborative evidence ( other testimonies differing even more wildly) is surprising; I would have thought it an exact reason to refer the case to a higher judicial authority.
After that, all has changed and the events reconnect as Officer Wilson recalls this on account of the disputed answer drawing his attention :
“When I start looking at Brown, first thing I notice is in his right hand, his hand is full of Cigarillos. And that’s when it clicked for me because I now saw the Cigarillos, I looked in my mirror, I did a doublecheck that Johnson was wearing a black shirt, these are the two from the stealing.” p. 209 lines 2 to 7
At that point, at that point only, does the situation change in nature. The Officer is answering a clear call and has suspects not citizens anymore and we are entering protocol matters. His use of force is subject to procedures that vary. In my opinion to answer a reader’s comment, at this point, having come to a realization and called for help, the Officer could have turned around and followed the duo to their destination. Or tried to arrest them although alone which he did, backing up saying “Hey come here for a minute.” p. 209 line 19
We don’t need to follow through since we covered the rest yesterday but do note that on top of the discrepancies again found in what follows where the Officer recalls his door being blocked while Johnson remembers being hit by it the mention of the epiphany, the moment when Officer Wilson above catches on that he is in presence of suspects of a crime …
is totally absent in his interview by the detective 24 hours after the incident???
“Fuck what you have to say.
…
And, then after that I put the vehicle in reverse, backed up about ten feet to ‘em, a, attempted to open my door. Prior to backing up I did call out on the radio. I said “Frank 21 out with two, send me another car”
There is no mention of the fact that he just caught on to being in the presence of probable thieves. The Cigarillos are first described as “ … what was stolen from the Market Store, …” several lines later when prompted to describe the assault inside the truck’s cockpit!
Are you calmly going to tell me that again it’s distinction without a difference? I thought that the American Justice system as its reputation goes was customary of such laxity. Studying the radio reports clears nothing.
What is heard from Frank 21 ( Wilson’s radio handle/name/code that day ) does not commit either way. Then again, some answers are blanked out or not identified by officer, so that these transcripts’ worth as evidence from where we now stand is quite relative. And while what we did get does corroborate Officer Wilson’s testimony, it makes no mention of any suspicions he may have had. With even that useless addition, all of what we saw stands as a Frankenstein body of partially conflicting pseudo-evidences patched together by incongruencies. And apparently it did not matter in the result.
The rest is of the same nature. Immediately after the door disagreement part comes Officer Wilson’s “ … I saw him coming into my vehicle” p. 210 lines 13-14 to Johnson’s “ … but his arm came out the window and that’s the initial contact they had.” p. 49 lines 22-23
At this point, we might as well stop. For there is but only one way for the indictment not to have been reached, for the above to make sense and that is that in the end, the grand jury decided to trust only one side, one narrative. As long as you compare the stories, going on to trial was the standard option. I believe that my promise was also respected to treat each side fairly. Either cop and witness were suspected of lying to some degree as both were considered as possibly acting on unspoken premisses or motivations. I did not use the victim himself since he was guilty of an offense ab initio yes but this was balanced out by the impossibility for him to explain himself. I did not use any reference to race at any point so that this argument is not in play contrary to deleterious media habits … as promised and thus showing that it was not central to the case . I made no reference to anything from outside the released body of evidence.
I do not claim either that all that I presented would hold up to a trial and result in a conviction, simply that reasons to doubt where omnipresent but somehow overlooked even though sufficient.
And I am left with the same feeling that inhabited me yesterday that nothing but imprecision was conclusively proved in that process but also that you need to look no further to find out that there is a problem with the use of force and guns in America that over time has separated law enforcement from the citizen itself made perennial by an excessive defense of law and order even when it is neither. That out of the three individuals concerned, none was truly innocent in all meanings of that word. That all 3 and the prosecution had prior motives. That which was which was in this case possibly determined by color but of uniform at least as much as skin, likely more. That accepting this inept grand jury process is akin to refusing to consider the debate called for by logic, a pressing need for change and in one instance Robert McCullough.
That only Michael Brown paid and way too much for Cigarillos even if ill-acquired.
That it will happen again soon.
And that that’s sad!
Peace out, Tay.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/evidence-released-in-michael-brown-case.html
Definitive Lapse of Reason 
Pingback: Definitive analysis of the Ferguson Grand Jury decision. | Definitive Lapse of Reason
Pingback: Ferguson Grand Jury 2014 epitaph. | Definitive Lapse of Reason