You are being a more than a little disingenuous. The issue being discussed was your fixation with the bullet casings. The only place those casings are inconsistent with the forensics is between your ears. NO forensic scientist has said those shell casings were inconsistent with Officer Wilson’s account.The accuracy of Wilson's account of critical matters is not relevant?
What, you have not read anything? You have not understood anything? Johnson’s testimony which accused Officer Wilson of murder was clearly and demonstrably wrong. Johnson said, Brown was shot in the back. He wasn’t. As previously documented, Johnson’s testimony has changed over time and as the autopsy information was release. Johnson’s testimony is not only inconsistent with the forensics but with itself. Johnson clearly said he witnessed Brown get shot in the back. The forensics says otherwise. And after the forensics were released, Johnson changed is story in an attempt to comport with the forensics. You even have one witness who admitted to the grand jury he faked his testimony.He was not inconsistent with the forensic evidence in what he said he saw - only the inferences he made, about what he could not actually see. That testimony is consistent with the forensic evidence. Why do you think it's wrong? He said kneeling or going to his knees - again, consistent with the forensics Again, consistent with the forensics, including the shell casing locations that tend to suggest Wilson may have had some memory problems.
So have Wilson's. With a trial we could have cleared this stuff up.
Show me one credible forensic expert who backs your fixation and machination with the shell casings? Forensic experts have said the forensics is consistent with Officer Wilson’s testimony. And you keep ignoring them and pretending their opinion doesn’t exist. You have seen the forensic experts’ conclusions; you have just chosen to ignore them. There are none so blind and none as deaf as those who will not see and will not hear. That is you my friend.
So you think Johnson’s false testimony and inconsistent testimony isn’t a problem? Well I think that speaks volumes about your positions and inability to view this issue objectively. As I have repeatedly said, you believe what you want to believe. It’s like trying to convert a religious zealot. It ain’t gonna happen, because this isn’t a rational discussion. You have a belief system that is inconsistent with reality. Facts don’t matter to you and that is why you keep ignoring them and inventing your own fiction.Btw: if there are all these other problems with Johnson's testimony, why did you choose to post a non-problem, above?
LOL, thanks for making my point again. Only you and those like you can take an article titled, “Why Michael Brown’s best friend’s story isn’t credible” and say it undermines my statements about Johnson’s credibility. I suggest you read that article again. You are just not capable of processing reality related to this matter. You have a very serious case of confirmation bias.And why do you keep posting these links that undermine your contentions? That Washington Post link, for example, shows Johnson quite closely consistent with the forensic evidence - Johnson thinks Brown was shot in the chest in the car fight because he saw the blood spatter, for example, and the forensics say Brown was shot in the hand while trying to grab the gun; which would spatter blood on his chest just as Johnson says he saw. And so forth. Are you simply taking the verdict of the "journalist" in these links, and ignoring the physical evidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Again, show me on forensic expert who agrees with your interpretations…just one.
Yep.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown[/URL]
As you have repeatedly demonstrated, you have these deeply held beliefs that are counter to the truth.
Except I didn’t lie, when you boil it all down, all you have is the testimony of discredited individuals like Johnson. Because the forensics you play lip service to, do not support your contentions. So you try to cherry pick through the forensics pointing to irrelevant material as justification for your beliefs, point to irrelevant material, and you just make stuff up as you did in the previous paragraph. You made up your mind about Officer Wilson’s guilt even before the investigation had been completed and you haven’t looked back since, nor will you. You were out supporting the protestors in the street because you believed what “witnesses” like Johnson were telling the world. You didn’t have the forensics, and you didn’t let that stop you. So yeah, the sole basis for your belief in Officer Wilson’s guilt is the discredited witnesses.That is not what you claimed when you lied. You claimed I relied wholly on eyewitness testimony. You have claimed that before, several times. Like this: I have never accepted the testimony of any witness, or argued from it. Not once. And I know you know that.