Drop Down MenusCSS Drop Down MenuPure CSS Dropdown Menu
Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text
Survivor of US Drone Attack:
Obama Belongs on List of World's Tyrants

Poisoning Black Cities: Corporate Campaign to Ethnically Cleanse US Cities Massive Marches in Poland
Against Authoritarian Threat of Far-Right
Ethiopia’s Invisible Crisis: Land Rights Activists Kidnapped and Tortured

Global Perspectives Now Global Perspectives Now

Ferguson Grand Jury "Reaches Decision": But as You Can Tell From All the Worry About Unrest — Few Believe the Killer Cop Will Be Indicted

Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson: Looks like he'll be free to enjoy that $500,000 plus
that the white supremacists donated to him
(via crowd funding) for the killing of Michael
Brown. He'll likely be treated like a hero and rewarded with job opportunities
throughout the United States.

By Jason Sickles
A St. Louis County grand jury has finally reached a decision on whether to charge Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown Jr., several media outlets reported Monday.

The panel’s ruling is expected to be revealed during a press conference at the courthouse in Clayton later today.

Anxiety over the decision has kept the St. Louis region on edge, as the public waits to see whether the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager by a white police officer will result in an indictment.

The grand jury convened Aug. 20 to hear evidence and testimony. The 12-member group was asked to decide if there was probable cause to charge Wilson with a crime and what that charge should be. Options range from second-degree involuntary manslaughter to second-degree murder. Wilson, 28, could face life in prison if convicted of the most serious charge.

But the panel may find that probable cause does not exist and dismiss the state’s case, without charging Wilson.

Read More


Cop Who Killed Michael Brown Had No Visible Injuries After the Shooting — New Videos Show: Propaganda About Darren Wilson's Injuries Proven False

Not only does the newly released video show Darren Wilson had no facial injuries (and certainly no bandages on his face), but Wilson seemed to have no injuries at all. He shows no injuries or bandages on his face, arms, wrists, or hands either going to the hospital or coming from the hospital.

Darren Wilson returns from hospital (left), Darren Wilson on way to hospital (middle, right).
Screen captures from newly released video shows that, contrary to earlier reports,
Darren Wilson appears to have suffered no injuries whatsoever.

By Ronald David Jackson
Soon after Michael Brown was killed by officer Darren Wilson, tt was reported that Darren Wilson suffered a "fractured eye socket" after a "scuffle" with Michael Brown. The Washington Post said their source was a family friend of Wilson's. ABC reported that a "source" claimed Wilson suffered a "serious facial injury". NBC suggested Wilson suffered injuries when they reported that Wilson was "taken to the hospital" after his encounter with Michael Brown. There was even some psychological warfare, when a bogus photograph of Darren Wilson severely injured in a hospital bed went viral. CNN labeled reports of a fractured eye socket false.

ABC News report of Darren Wilson's 'Serious Facial Injury'


Darren Wilson leaves the police station for the hospital after he shot Michael Brown and appears to be free of the injuries he reportedly suffered
at the hands of Michael Brown


Darren Wilson arrives back at police station from the hospital and appears to be free of the "severe facial injuries"
he reportedly suffered at the hands of Michael Brown


Did Cop Who Killed Michael Brown Have History of Lying & Abuse?: Video Suggests He Lied in Police Report About Arrest of Man Who Video Taped Him (Video)

Darren Wilson doesn't like to be video taped.

Darren Wilson: "...Take a picture of me one more time, I'm a lock your ass up."
Mike Arman: "Sir, do I not have the right to record?" — Darren Wilson: "No you don't."


The video seems to tell a different story from what Darren Wilson
provided in his police report

Excerpt from Darren Wilson's police report of the incident leading to arrest of man who video taped him.

1) Darren Wilson did not advise the individual that a voice recording would be acceptable.

2) The individual did not have his camera in Darren Wilson's face.

3) The individual was not ordered to get off the porch and place his hands behind his back before he was arrested.

Read the Entire Police Report


The New York Times Assassinates Michael Brown: Publish Prosecutor's Leaks They Know Is Propaganda

“Good police reporters know when they’re being used by the police. Bad police reporters also know when they’re being used by the police but they eagerly report whatever the police want them to report."—Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC

The Ferguson prosecutor and his enablers at CNN and the New York Times would fail a lie detector test.

By Margaret Kimberle, BAR
Eighteen year old Michael Brown man was shot to death by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri on August 9, 2014. Because the people of Ferguson rose up in protest, his death did not disappear as is often the case with black victims of police violence. Newspapers and television networks from all over the world cover the continuing protests as a grand jury deliberates Wilson’s fate.

The coverage has varied greatly in quality, with the New York Times faring the worst among the major corporate media outlets. The Times alternately casts aspersions on Brown’s character and relies on law enforcement leaks which make it appear that Wilson acted appropriately when he shot a fleeing, unarmed young man. The result is justification for racist murder.

One of the newspaper’s African American reporters, John Eligon, began a profile of Brown by stating that he was “no angel” who performed “vulgar” rap music lyrics, “dabbled in drugs and alcohol” and got into scuffles. Even the Times public editor conceded that the words “no angel” were “a regrettable mistake.” In another profile, Wilson was called “well mannered”, “relatively soft spoken” and “bland.” There was no mention of his musical tastes or recreational activities, and no judgments made about his character.

But the worst case scenario has happened not once, but twice with New York Times reporters reporting law enforcement leaks as if they are factual and making the case that Wilson was justified in shooting Brown. An August 19, 2014 Times headline claimed that eyewitnesses to the shooting gave accounts which conflicted with another and which also implied Brown threatened Wilson after he fled.

That headline is easily proven to be untrue. Every witness to the shooting has been consistent. All say that Brown and Wilson had a physical altercation through the patrol car window. They all say that a shot or shots were fired inside the car. They all say that Brown fled while Wilson continued to shoot at him. They all say that Brown turned towards Wilson while already wounded and that Wilson continued to shoot him as he fell. One bullet struck Brown in the top of his skull and another in one of his eyes.

“The Times headline claimed that eyewitnesses to the shooting gave accounts which conflicted with another and which also implied Brown threatened Wilson after he fled.”

These accounts and Brown’s autopsy were all public by the time the August article appeared. Witnesses spoke on air to MSNBC and CNN and to the New York Times as well. It should not have been difficult to give a clear and accurate account of their words. There was a justifiable uproar over this story which led to the Times public editor again agreeing with critics because reporters made claims they couldn’t verify and that they didn’t emphasize enough their reliance on interested parties.

Did reporters Frances Robles and Michael S. Schmidt speak to Wilson, Wilson’s attorney, the Ferguson police department, the justice department, local prosecutors, or all of the above? MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell gave this assessment of the Times article. “Good police reporters know when they’re being used by the police. Bad police reporters also know when they’re being used by the police but they eagerly report whatever the police want them to report.”

Not content to happily be used in the cause of injustice, on October 17, 2014 reporters Michael S. Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo and Julie Bosman continued to flack in Darren Wilson’s interest. This time they repeat Wilson’s account without analysis or the information already made public which casts doubt on his story. According to the Times, Wilson says he believed his life was in danger as he and Brown struggled in the patrol car. It isn’t news that Wilson and Brown struggled, nor is it newsworthy that the officer would claim to feel endangered. But the story made it appear that the old information was new, and didn’t make it clear that Wilson fired ten more shots after Brown fled.

The net effect of the pro-Wilson bias is very simple. Schmidt, Apuzzo and Bosman conclude erroneously that there will be a “high bar” in proving a federal civil rights case against Wilson. That statement is highly debatable but it is now more likely to be true because the most powerful newspaper in the country says that it is true. Journalist Milton Allimadi points out the obvious. “Pre-attacking the federal case is the strategy. That's why the Times is being fed the information, which upon careful analyses, are not as impactful as Wilson's supporters believe and the Times' story implies.”

“Reporters made claims they couldn’t verify and that they didn’t emphasize enough their reliance on interested parties.”

The Obama administration has no interest in taking on the civil rights violations committed by police and vigilantes across the country. They may invite Trayvon Martin’s parents to the White House and show them off for effect, but they have made no effort to prosecute George Zimmerman, who is a free man. If the paper which represents the interests of the powerful says that Wilson was justified, then he will be called justified and Brown’s family will get no more justice than Martin’s did.

The Times is not alone in acting as Wilson’s defense team. As previously reported in Black Agenda Report, Charles Blow and Van Jones disgracefully made the case for Wilson on CNN and acted as a defense team for him and for all of white America. No one inside or outside of the New York Times should think they can get away with defending America’s injustice system without repercussion or comment.

The odds of the legal system bringing justice to Michael Brown’s family were always slim. They are even slimmer if the New York Times, the so-called paper of record, gives license to killer police officers. Already the poorly reported story is being repeated as gospel truth, and righteous anger is made to appear suspect.

Michael Brown was running away and already wounded when he was shot in the head and in the eye. Until the New York Times makes that clear their coverage is worthless journalistically and gives aid and comfort to American lynch law, which has never been repealed.

Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

 Reprinted with permission from Black Agenda Report.


Autopsy Findings Leaked By Ferguson Prosecutor Was 'Taken Out of Context' and 'Misquoted'- Says Expert Who Did The Autopsy (Video)

While the pro-police media has gone wild publishing the autopsy leaks from the Ferguson prosecutor, they have been almost silent about the forensic pathologist who says her findings were taken out of context.

Judy Melinek suggested the Ferguson prosecutor's interpretation of her  findings was biased. (Screen capture from MSNBC video)
Judy Melinek suggested the Ferguson prosecutor's interpretation of her
findings was biased. (Screen capture from MSNBC video)

Judy Melinek, one of the forensic experts who was quoted by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Tuesday about the Michael Brown autopsy report, is taking issue with how the newspaper portrayed her comments.

The key piece of Melinek's analysis, according to the Post-Dispatch's original report, was that the report of Brown's autopsy "supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound. If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.”

That would be consistent with Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson's version of events, as reported by the New York Times and others. Melinek was also paraphrased by the newspaper saying that the autopsy was inconsistent with witness accounts of Brown having his hands up in surrender when he was shot by Wilson.

But Melinek told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Wednesday that her comments had been taken "out of context" and that she believed the findings could be explained by other scenarios as well.

Read More

No comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...