Michael Brown's Shot in the forearm.

[AnotherDem]

I'm still buzzed about the Federal Medical Examiner finding a posterior entry wound, in the top of Michael Brown's right forearm. To me he recieved this bullet wound from running away. It did not show up on the posterior drawing from the first autopsy. The first autopsies intentionally showed you that all entrance wound was on the anterior of the body. They did not show you on the autopsy drawing, any shot that was on the posterior region. And the media didn't even mention this difference.

If you look at the map of the crime scene and find where the furthest blood was found, it was found (If Michael Brown had his back turned away from the SUV) to the left of Micheal about twenty feet away from where is body ended up. Save that thought for later.

Now lets go back to where the bullet entered the arm. It entered the arm in the back, at the top of the right forearm. It was a shot that hit him in the back of the arm while he was running away, and when the arm reach it's peak reaching back, it would be totally exposed to bullet fire from Wilson's gun.

You say this can't be. But it can. I raised my right arm to see the anterior view of my arm, palms up. And everything underneath was the posterior. Then a place a piece of sticky paper where the bullet enter the upper forearm on the posterior side. After that I turned my back to a mirror and got in a running stance with my arms, and low and behold, I see how this surface area CAN be exposed to a bullet fired by Darren Wilson's while running away.

But the smoking gun aspect is the blood that ended up to the left of Michael Brown as he was running away. The autopsy stated that the trajectory of this bullet was forward and to the left. This was also a deep wound that fractured the bone. So I could see it piercing his arm, hitting the bone and turning left, sending blood 15-20 feet away to the left.

An alternative view is that he was charging and the unla bone got hit from the front. But when the forearm is place in front of you, I can not for the life of me see that an posterior entry wound could exist. I would say the radius bone would be more exposed. What do you say?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[schrute]

Listen troll, no one is going to take your bait, and if they do who the hell cares. Why? Because we're never going to know what happened...you can "reconstruct" the scenario a million times, and people can get on their soapbox and testify to their expertise in forensics and crime scene investigation, but it doesn't amount to anything more than speculation.

People who want conspiracy, racism and injustice will see conspiracy, racism and injustice; people who back law enforcement regardless will back law enforcement regardless; people who don't care will continue to not care.

Now if you want opinion, I'll give you mine: tragic situation resultant from crime-laden low soceioeconomic segment of the population with no ability to rescue itself from the deep cultural rifts it & our society and government have perpetuated.

 

[AnotherDem]

Wow. No, I don't want your opinion. Your anger at my opinion amazes me. But it doesn't surprise me.

I'm looking here for some sound forensics. Not some childish person, that likes calling people names, before giving them their opinions.

 

[schrute]

You're right, others may have more patience for people who posit [stupid] questions without attainable answers and previously had no interest in this forum (you joined yesterday). I'll leave you to their graces.

 

[AnotherDem]

Only the person asking the question, in question, can identify if their question is stupid, because the question is stupid if they don't know they have the answer, therefore the person who thinks they can identify the validity of someone else's question, becomes stupid for trying.

Thanks for your attention, but I can tell, you are not the one I'm trying to talk to.

 

[schrute]

I rest my case.

 

[mlw03]

I will give the OP the benefit of the doubt and briefly reply. I'm an FP, and I've read the full autopsy report. I did not read the OP's post in detail, but I'll simply say these things. 1) FPs always describe wounds and wound directions with respect to the anatomic position. 2) Anterior versus posterior entry on an upper extremity wound says nothing about the position of the person shot - the shoulder joint is highly mobile, period.

Your theories are silly and without solid evidence. There is nothing in the autopsy report that outright contradicts the officer's account. That doesn't intrinsically mean the officer's account is true, but it means a lot nonetheless.

So offer your conspiracy theories until you are blue in the face.

Now if folks want to talk about a more interesting police involved death in the media of late, the Staten Island case is far more interesting, from a pathology perspective, as well as an ethical point of view.

 

[AnotherDem]

No, It's a miss-interpretation of what can be considered the facts. It's not conspiracy. I think they went for his story instead of state the fact that it could have been either way. It's not a contradiction report. too me it's a story to fit the facts. The fact is that the "fore-arm" had a posterior entry wound on the upper forearm. For the shot to be coming from the front, it would have to be position in front of you, and very high.

If you take your entire right arm, hold it straight out in front of you with your palms up, you have a full top anterior view of the arm. Then take your left hand and pinch the upper part of your right fore-arm. This will represent the entry and exit wound. Now if you move the arm so that the entry side will be in front of you, I think you will see how even though I said it was possible, it would look disturbingly funny, for him to be in this position to get a shot at that location.

What do you think?

 

[dpmd]

I have no idea what you are talking about. All you have to do is bring your arm in front of your body with your thumb facing in (something that would be reasonable for someone to do while running) and someone firing at you would be able to hit your ulna.

 

[deleted480308]

I have no idea what you are talking about. All you have to do is bring your arm in front of your body with your thumb facing in (something that would be reasonable for someone to do while running) and someone firing at you would be able to hit your ulna.

Or hold your forearm across your face with your palm facing you

This isn't exactly a grassy knoll situation

 

[dpmd]

Or hold your forearm across your face with your palm facing you

This isn't exactly a grassy knoll situation

It is like this guy has never heard of a nightstick fracture since he is thinking the radius is more vulnerable.

 

[mlw03]

No, It's a miss-interpretation of what can be considered the facts. It's not conspiracy. I think they went for his story instead of state the fact that it could have been either way. It's not a contradiction report. too me it's a story to fit the facts. The fact is that the "fore-arm" had a posterior entry wound on the upper forearm. For the shot to be coming from the front, it would have to be position in front of you, and very high.

If you take your entire right arm, hold it straight out in front of you with your palms up, you have a full top anterior view of the arm. Then take your left hand and pinch the upper part of your right fore-arm. This will represent the entry and exit wound. Now if you move the arm so that the entry side will be in front of you, I think you will see how even though I said it was possible, it would look disturbingly funny, for him to be in this position to get a shot at that location.

What do you think?

I think you are mistaken. Part of what I do as an FP is to offer reasoned opinions. An autopsy finding may be consistent with a story, inconsistent, or neither. I also talk about likelihood. A child with bilateral and anterior and posterior subgaleal contusions more likely sustained those injuries from inflicted trauma than from a fall from standing. I can and have said that on a witness stand. I have also said to attorney and police that anterior versus posterior entry on an upper extremity wound means nothing, as people and their arms move about during the course of an incident.

I really don't understand your arguments. As I said, upper extremity wound locations mean virtually nothing about the position of the decedent. Torso, head, neck, and lower extremity shots are much more useful in that regard. Your arguments are being offered without any substantiation, and it is clear you do not have formal FP training.

Now if you want to have a real discussion, think about the implications of the head shot and its trajectory. That lends itself to some real meaningful discussion about the interpretation of the wound path in the context of the officer's explanation.

 

[pathstudent]

I tend to agree that the another dem has already maid up his mind and will use whatever equivocal evidence to support his beliefs

 

[AnotherDem]

Now if you want to have a real discussion, think about the implications of the head shot and its trajectory. That lends itself to some real meaningful discussion about the interpretation of the wound path in the context of the officer's explanation.

Go on. Are you talking about the angle of the trajectory through the skull of the eye socket wound. Or are you talking about the wound in the top of the head?

 

[AnotherDem]

I tend to agree that the another dem has already maid up his mind and will use whatever equivocal evidence to support his beliefs

No, what I believe is similar to what was said. It is how the possibility of the ulna getting hit from a position of being in-front of the body, when it also has a probability of being in the back of his arm from a running away position. I think both are viable. But the narrative is only pushing ideas within the context of the Officer's testimony. I choose to think outside that box.

What i did is put a piece of sticky paper in the back of my forearm to represent an entry wound, and then I went to a mirror, and then I could see how the arm could have been exposed to bullet fire from the officer's gun.

 

[mlw03]

Go on. Are you talking about the angle of the trajectory through the skull of the eye socket wound. Or are you talking about the wound in the top of the head?

I'm talking about the head shot.

 

[AnotherDem]

I'm talking about the head shot.

Ok, the trajectory is that he was down, and it was on the top of his head. So he had to be going down with the last shot was taken. But how far down? Since the last shots was in succession, does that mean that the shot in the eye was also a going down shot? Or....Of the last four shots the 1st of the four is a little separate from the last three. Could that eye shot be the first of the four and then the last three was when he was going down and the last shot, on top of the head?

 

[mlw03]

Ok, the trajectory is that he was down, and it was on the top of his head. So he had to be going down with the last shot was taken. But how far down? Since the last shots was in succession, does that mean that the shot in the eye was also a going down shot? Or....Of the last four shots the 1st of the four is a little separate from the last three. Could that eye shot be the first of the four and then the last three was when he was going down and the last shot, on top of the head?

I don't really know how to respond to this. Your understanding of forensic pathology is just too lacking. I don't even know where to begin correcting your false assumptions and 'points.' For starters though, 'trajectory' refers to a wound path, not the person, so that 'he was down' means nothing to me. Second, any FP will tell you that it is usually impossible to determine the order of GSWs based on the autopsy alone.

First read most of DiMaio's book on firearm injuries, then read the autopsy report in full (including the toxicology report, which shows recent cannabis use), then we can maybe have a discussion. But you seem to have an agenda, and I'm kinda bored with this exchange.

 

[deleted314957]

I don't really know how to respond to this. Your understanding of forensic pathology is just too lacking. I don't even know where to begin correcting your false assumptions and 'points.' For starters though, 'trajectory' refers to a wound path, not the person, so that 'he was down' means nothing to me. Second, any FP will tell you that it is usually impossible to determine the order of GSWs based on the autopsy alone.

First read most of DiMaio's book on firearm injuries, then read the autopsy report in full (including the toxicology report, which shows recent cannabis use), then we can maybe have a discussion. But you seem to have an agenda, and I'm kinda bored with this exchange.

I can almost ASSURE you that this guy isn't even aware of the existence of Dr. DiMaio let alone his excellent firearms book.

 

[AnotherDem]

I don't really know how to respond to this. Your understanding of forensic pathology is just too lacking. I don't even know where to begin correcting your false assumptions and 'points.' For starters though, 'trajectory' refers to a wound path, not the person, so that 'he was down' means nothing to me. Second, any FP will tell you that it is usually impossible to determine the order of GSWs based on the autopsy alone.

First read most of DiMaio's book on firearm injuries, then read the autopsy report in full (including the toxicology report, which shows recent cannabis use), then we can maybe have a discussion. But you seem to have an agenda, and I'm kinda bored with this exchange.

I've read the autopsy report in full. The only autopsy report that I'm willing to read in full was the federal autopsy. The cannibus use means nothing to be. It doesn't make you a violent person. As another person stated "It may violently make you attack a bag of cheetoes, but that's about it." I don't even know why you brought that up.