Yesterday the St. Louis Dispatch got a copy of the autopsy report for Michael Brown. They asked a forensic expert to review it. They quoted her in the following way
Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.” She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.”
Last night Lawrence O'Donnell interviewed her (in his typical bulldoggish prosecutor) way. She doesn't seem to seem to interpreting the evidence as definitely as the the newspaper reported. She was much more eqivocal, including caveats and saying you need witness testimony and other scene evidence to get the full picture.
For example here's the newspaper
Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.
However, Melinek is NOT SAYING that Brown was not shot AT while running away and the witnesses that say that must be mistaken. For example, because the entry wounds were from the front, you can't conclusively say that the officer was firing at Brown as he ran away. He could have fired and missed. It might be his bullets only found their target after Brown turned around.
O'Donnell specifically asks about what can the autopsy tell us about the bullets that missed Brown. Her answer is nothing. She says that evidence about the bullets that missed can't be "found on the body" it can only be found on the scene. And you need the scene evidence to interpret the autopsy.
O'Donnell was said when he was shocked by how far Melinek's quotes in the article went beyond the actual facts. Then he got a copy of of the written statement she gave to the newspaper and found nothing he disagreed with. It seems the reporter interviewed her and misunderstood or misinterpreted what she was saying. O'Donnell said not one word of the written statement was used by the newspaper.
The written statement had more caveats. The pathologist also made the point that you can't interpret autopsy results in a vacuum. You need other information, witness reports, detective's notes, etc. The reports can support more than one view of how an incident went down. And she said, "she made it very clear that we only have partial information" and autopsy results need to be interpreted in context with "the scene investigation."
So she says some of what is in the autopsy is consistent with what the police officer said, but they may also be consistent with what other witnesses say.
You can see the video here.
http://www.msnbc.com/...
There are some thing that still might support the officer's account, but the autopsy report is in no way as definitive as St. Louis Dispatch made it out to be. There is much more nuance however, other papers have picked up the original St. Louis Dispatch article's phrasing.