One of the forensic experts consulted on the leaked autopsy report for Michael Brown is saying that the media took her comments “out of context,” casting doubt on recent reports on the shooting.
This week saw a supposedly bombshell revelation in the Michael Brown shooting case, with the autopsy and toxicology report on the shooting hitting the press and sparking even more controversy in an already polarizing investigation. In revealing the report, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch quoted two experts not involved in the official investigation as saying that the autopsy report lent credence to Officer Darren Wilson’s testimony that Brown went for his gun in the course of a struggle while in the officer’s cruiser.
Much of the news media ran with that angle and the narrative surrounding the case suddenly became one wherein Brown was decidedly the aggressor, according to the forensic evidence.
Speaking on MSNBC with Lawrence O’Donnell [ h/t : TalkingPointsMemo ], though, one of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ‘s experts took issue with the paper’s recounting of her comments.
“What happens sometimes is when you get interviewed and you have a long conversation with a journalist, they’re going to take things out of context,” Judy Melinek told O’Donnell. “I made it very clear that we only have partial information here. We don’t have the scene information. We don’t have the police investigation. We don’t have all the witness statements. And you can’t interpret autopsy findings in a vacuum.”
Melinek also pointed out that an autopsy wouldn’t show if Michael Brown’s hands were up when the shots that missed him were fired. The Post-Dispatch ‘s earlier reporting on Melinek’s comments implied that she believed Brown’s hands were not up while Wilson was shooting.
Melinek went on to say that she did not intend to say that the autopsy report proved Michael Brown was reaching for Wilson’s gun, only that Wilson’s testimony could be true given the evidence. However, she stressed, that does not mean that Wilson’s version is absolutely the truth.
“I have limited information,” she said. “It could be consistent with other scenarios. That’s the important thing.”
Melinek’s initial comments on the matter, in combination with those of St. Louis Medical Examiner Dr. Michael Graham, sparked a new wave of controversy over the shooting. Skeptics of the pro-Brown side pointed to the expert findings as justification for Wilson’s use of deadly force and claimed that protestors calling for justice for Brown were misguided.
Those protestors, though, took to the streets again , with some calling for “vigorous prosecution” of Wilson.
Ferguson, Missouri, has been on edge almost every day since Wilson shot Brown dead on August 9. Initial protests were marred by some incidences of looting, though some community members have since banded together to protect stores and buildings as the protests continue.
Currently, a grand jury is investigating Wilson’s actions in the shooting, weighing whether it should file charges against the officer. The grand jury’s decision, by some accounts, is fraught with peril, as some have promised a new wave of violence if charges are not brought against Wilson.
The grand jury will not consider the “expert opinions” offered by Graham and Melinek. Melinek, though, says this is a good thing, as they must make their decision based on a whole range of facts, not just one or two out-of-context takes on an autopsy.
“That’s why the witnesses need to speak to the grand jury,” she added on MSNBC , “and the grand jury needs to hear all the unbiased testimony and compare those statements to the physical evidence.”