A New Series of Posts: Reading the Darren Wilson Transcript (Intro)

Here at Allergic to Bull, I don’t typically chase around breaking news.  I don’t try to give you a digest of all the day’s news.  There are many other blogs that do that.  What I try to do is give you an in-depth perspective on whatever randomly interests me, often including something related to current events.  I try to bring a fresh perspective and I try to dig in deep.  A friend, Becca Lower, complained that she didn’t have time to read my material at work and that is sort of the idea.  This is a site you “pick up” when you want to chew on something larger, maybe over a meal, or just before bed.  Maybe you want to read one interesting piece over lunch and so you go to my site.  Stuff like that.

Anyway, last night we learned that a Grand Jury is not going to indict Darren Wilson, which I live-blogged, here.  Riots sprung up immediately afterward, with sad predictability.  And Wilson still faces potential legal challenges.  The Feds are still looking into Civil Rights charges, although that possibility seems remote.  And of course Wilson can be sued for it, too, but I am not sure that will happen.  Judging by what I have seen about the Browns, I doubt that they can afford a long lawsuit—really, bluntly, most people can’t.  Given the failure to even indict, few lawyers looking at this purely from the standpoint of the odds of victory would be likely to operate on a contingency fee.  I could see it being either pro-bono, or “semi-pro-bono” with the possibility of being paid from contingency fees, if a lawyer sees it as a way to become more prominent.  But that seems like the only likely way to see a suit filed, and even then, the fact Wilson won before the Grand Jury suggests he would win before a civil jury, too.

Oh, and here is one other thought.  I wonder if Wilson is thinking of defamation suits against any of the people who made false statements about him?  There is unlikely to be a civil cause of action for perjury in Missouri, but false statements outside of court that harm a person’s reputation is typically handled as defamation.  So if someone said publicly that Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown in the back as he lay on the ground, and it turns out that wasn’t true, Wilson might have a cause of action against that person—although there is still the difficulty of proving that damage was caused by it.

But, missing from all of that analysis is the vital question: was the Grand Jury correct?  Up until now I have ducked the question of Wilson’s guilt or innocence because I haven’t seen the evidence.  I mean that is elementary—don’t judge until you see the evidence (although I tend to trust juries and I presume they usually get it right).  But now we have the evidence.  All of it has been released.  The transcript of the Grand Jury proceedings alone is 4799 pages.  And there are photos, etc.  So I will be reading through that monstrous thing with an eye toward figuring out: is Wilson guilty of any crime, and should he have been indicted?

Just to set things up, first we have the transcripts.  I have uploaded an omnibus, non-OCR version of it, here.  That is essentially a mirror of what the NY Times uploaded here.  And another site uploaded an OCR version here.

In addition, I broke town the transcript into 20 separate files of 250 pages a pop as follows: Part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9, part 10, part 11, part 12, part 13, part 14, part 15, part 16, part 17, part 18, part 19, and part 20.

I ran OCR on all of them so they are all searchable.  I am doing it this way, because then it will make it easier for you to follow along at home.  I will probably embed them in subsequent posts.

And of course they have released numerous images from the case.  You can see them here, but I am also going to put the photos below.  Embiggen as appropriate.

Pictures of Wilson:

Medical examination of Wilson:

So that is it for dumping the documents on you in the first post.  

I am honestly not even sure yet what to make of all of this material.  I suspect it will read almost like a live blog as I dive through this pile.  And as always I will be open-source, allowing you to make up your own mind and think your own thoughts.  I'll share my opinion, but you will know enough of the basis of my opinion to figure out if I am right.

That being said, my tendency is to think this way.  The forensic evidence is the best evidence because it is the least capable of being screwed up.  Its objective, providing that no one contaminated it.  Eyewitness evidence is important, too, but forensic evidence is a good way of weeding out who is credible.  And of course Wilson’s evidence is the least credible of eyewitnesses.  I mean, of course he is going to claim he acted properly.  The only time I expect to credit his testimony is when it covers a point no one else can testify to, and only so far as it is not contradicted by forensic evidence.

I mean that was one of the big evidentiary problems in the George Zimmerman case, which I pointed out right from the beginning.  On some of the most crucial points, Zimmerman was the only living witness.  Even if you ignored everything Zimmerman said, you had no other evidence and so you had to make every reasonable presumption in his favor.  For instance, who was the initial aggressor?  Zimmerman says Martin was, and there is no other evidence on the subject.  The presumption of innocence means you can’t just assume Zimmerman threw the first punch, and if you discount Zimmerman’s evidence as “of course he is going to say that,” then you are left with nothing.  I predicted he would never be convicted of anything, and I have proven to be right.

That earlier piece on Zimmerman also gives you a good primer on the law of self-defense in general, at least in Florida, while this piece discusses how Missouri law deals with self-defense and the unique right of a cop to use force to stop a fleeing suspect (in some cases), and this piece discusses (albeit briefly) the standard for indictment.  I don’t mind explaining myself, dear reader, but I am unlikely to repeat myself, so consider that to be your “homework” if you come along with me for this ride.

And other outlets are doing their own analysis as we speak, which is fine.  For instance, this is the Washington Post’s discussion of the autopsy.  This graphic strikes me as analysis, but since forensics is not one of my areas of expertise, it is appreciated.

And they have a sort of pictorial illustration of the Wilson/Brown encounter.  I have no idea whether they are right or not, but you can see for yourself, here.  But I will do my own reading.

So keep watching this space, and I expect to eventually read the entire transcript and look at all the evidence in more depth, and to give you my thoughts.  I hope you enjoy it.  I will update this post to include links to the other posts in the series, without formally announcing an update.

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist (and adjudicated pedophile) Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the donation link on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.