Fed autopsy: Michael Brown not shot in the back

The narrative of Michael Brown being shot in the back while trying to surrender is dying a slow death, much to the embarrassment of the mainstream media that reported the story of his strong arm robbery accomplice Dorian Johnson. You can sense the chagrin, as the hopes of riling up black turnout by aggravating racial tensions with fantasy racism slowly subsides.

Tony Lee of Breitbart reports:

It took the Washington Post 2,017 words and 59 paragraphs in a feature about Dorian Johnson, who initially said that his friend Michael Brown was shot in the back, to reveal that the federal government's autopsy also reportedly did not find that to be the case. 

As the Post noted in its profile of Dorian Johnson, Brown's "body had been autopsied three times — once each by St. Louis County police, a pathologist hired by Brown’s family and federal authorities. All found that Brown had been shot at least six times, including twice in the head but not in the back." The New York Times reported two weeks ago that the autopsy that the Brown family commissioned determined "that all the bullets were fired into his front."

Johnson had initially told the media that Brown was struck in the back, giving rise the to the "hands up, don't shoot" movement.

The narrative of Brown as a “gentle giant” is also taking a few hits. The release of a video recording of him robbing a convenience store was one step, but now another inconvenient truth may be revealed. Alan Scher Zagier of AP reports:

Lingering questions about Michael Brown could be answered Wednesday when a judge considers two media requests to release any possible juvenile records of the unarmed 18-year-old who was killed by a Missouri police officer last month.

Juvenile records are confidential in Missouri, so it's not definitively known if Brown was arrested before he legally became an adult. Police have said Brown had no adult criminal record. The family's attorney, Benjamin Crump, has refused to discuss whether Brown had a juvenile record.

The late Mr. Brown no longer has a privacy concern over his juvenile record. And there is a precedent for releasing the records:

The lawsuit by Charles C. Johnson of Fresno, California, cites a 1984 Missouri Court of Appeals ruling in which the juvenile records of an 18-year-old who was killed while shoplifting at a supermarket were released as part of a wrongful death lawsuit.

In that case, the mother of the young man killed after he was beaten by a store security guard in the 1979 robbery challenged a trial court's decision to release the records. They were sought by the defendants to help determine the value of the 18-year-old's lost earning capacity.

"It's a really interesting issue," said Jean Maneke, a Kansas City lawyer who is counsel to the Missouri Press Association. "It certainly is not much of a stretch to go from the case law that exists right now to that theory."

But Washington University law professor Mae Quinn, director of the school's juvenile law clinic, called the case cited by Johnson, editor-in-chief of the website GotNews.com, "completely irrelevant," since he does not have a vested legal interest in the Brown case.

The race-mongers have an interest in keeping the truth hidden. But as Brown's death triggered race violence, the public has an interest in knowning the truth.

The narrative of Michael Brown being shot in the back while trying to surrender is dying a slow death, much to the embarrassment of the mainstream media that reported the story of his strong arm robbery accomplice Dorian Johnson. You can sense the chagrin, as the hopes of riling up black turnout by aggravating racial tensions with fantasy racism slowly subsides.

Tony Lee of Breitbart reports:

It took the Washington Post 2,017 words and 59 paragraphs in a feature about Dorian Johnson, who initially said that his friend Michael Brown was shot in the back, to reveal that the federal government's autopsy also reportedly did not find that to be the case. 

As the Post noted in its profile of Dorian Johnson, Brown's "body had been autopsied three times — once each by St. Louis County police, a pathologist hired by Brown’s family and federal authorities. All found that Brown had been shot at least six times, including twice in the head but not in the back." The New York Times reported two weeks ago that the autopsy that the Brown family commissioned determined "that all the bullets were fired into his front."

Johnson had initially told the media that Brown was struck in the back, giving rise the to the "hands up, don't shoot" movement.

The narrative of Brown as a “gentle giant” is also taking a few hits. The release of a video recording of him robbing a convenience store was one step, but now another inconvenient truth may be revealed. Alan Scher Zagier of AP reports:

Lingering questions about Michael Brown could be answered Wednesday when a judge considers two media requests to release any possible juvenile records of the unarmed 18-year-old who was killed by a Missouri police officer last month.

Juvenile records are confidential in Missouri, so it's not definitively known if Brown was arrested before he legally became an adult. Police have said Brown had no adult criminal record. The family's attorney, Benjamin Crump, has refused to discuss whether Brown had a juvenile record.

The late Mr. Brown no longer has a privacy concern over his juvenile record. And there is a precedent for releasing the records:

The lawsuit by Charles C. Johnson of Fresno, California, cites a 1984 Missouri Court of Appeals ruling in which the juvenile records of an 18-year-old who was killed while shoplifting at a supermarket were released as part of a wrongful death lawsuit.

In that case, the mother of the young man killed after he was beaten by a store security guard in the 1979 robbery challenged a trial court's decision to release the records. They were sought by the defendants to help determine the value of the 18-year-old's lost earning capacity.

"It's a really interesting issue," said Jean Maneke, a Kansas City lawyer who is counsel to the Missouri Press Association. "It certainly is not much of a stretch to go from the case law that exists right now to that theory."

But Washington University law professor Mae Quinn, director of the school's juvenile law clinic, called the case cited by Johnson, editor-in-chief of the website GotNews.com, "completely irrelevant," since he does not have a vested legal interest in the Brown case.

The race-mongers have an interest in keeping the truth hidden. But as Brown's death triggered race violence, the public has an interest in knowning the truth.

RECENT VIDEOS