So I am watching CNN this morning and the anchor,Christine Romans, introduces her item about Darren Wilson's testimony before the grand jury and ends the sentence with "details about forensic evidence in that case seems to support his story". She prefaces it with the NYT story. Whether she is directly quoting NYT or adding that as part of CNN's editorializing, I am not sure. Either way, it is a very reckless way of misleading thousands of viewers about the latest development in this case.
So the fact that he shot Brown once in the car somehow support his contention that he was in fear of his life not only at the moment he was scuffling with Brown in the car, but many seconds later when he shot him to death? what does the blood in the car prove anything other than Darren Wilson could have overreacted in the car itself, let alone its lack of sufficient reason to shoot Michael Brown fatally later on in the sequence. I don't think most people have denied the fact that Brown and Wilson had a scuffle in the car. THough the extent and nature of the scuffle remains in dispute. And I sure would like to see evidence of those scratches and swollen head as footage of Wilson on the scene doesn't show his face (admittedly in a long shot) as normal and he never seems to check his face while standing around.
I had CNN on in the background as I was doing some work. And as CNN is prone to do, they repeat the same crap every half hour. So I heard that twice or thrice already this morning.
Just disgusted with how careless this so called journalistic organization is.
UPDATE: Oct 21:THis morning, CNN is still peddling the same reckless editorializing and even got some ex FBI expert to weigh in with the same crap. once again, none of these so called experts explain why blood in the car can't mean the cop took the gun out himself. Thankfully, they do invite Lizz Brown and Chris King from the St Louis American and she raises that point. But the vast drumbeat from CNN is using the same wording that such testimony "is supported" by the evidence. These guys would fail basic logic tests and it's amazing ex FBI personnel would engage in such stupid simplistic conclusions. I don't know for sure if Brown reached for the gun. BUt based on other cop incidents, I am inclined to believe that he did not. That is different from saying as these cops are implying that the evidence supports my contention. The evidence leaked doesn't support crap other than the fact that Brown was shot once in the car.