home

Freddie Gray: Prosecutor Seeks to Withhold Autopsy

The Baltimore prosecutor in the Freddie Gray case wants to withhold the autopsy report.

Feel free to discuss all aspects of the Freddie Gray case here, but keep in mind, race-baiting and racially charged comments will be deleted.

< Thursday Open Thread | USAF Finds ISIS Headquarters Via Social Media and Bombs It >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    88% no confidence vote (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 09:05:57 AM EST
    Prosecutors Withhold Evidence as June 26th looms

    Prosecutors did tenuously claim that the second-assault, reckless endangerment, and misconduct charges against Goodson, White, Rice and Porter, as well as the misconduct and reckless endangerment charges against Nero and Miller, all hinged on the purported failure of the officers to fasten Gray into the van with a seatbelt:

    [Prosecutors] said each officer "caused physical harm" to Gray by failing to secure him in the back of the van, and that the van then acted as an "instrumentality" of each of them and "made harmful contact" with Gray.

    Meanwhile the Baltimore Sun just ran a poll asking people:

    "Do you believe the Baltimore prosecutors have the evidence to support the harshest charges against the officers who interacted with Freddie Gray?"

    The results as of the writing of this post: Over 88% responded "No", while less than 7% responded "Yes" and ~5% "Unsure".

    Get the popcorn -- June 26th looms.

    that's not exactly the model (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    of a scientific poll, Chip

    Parent
    They are not "withholding" evidence, (4.25 / 4) (#164)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 09:31:29 AM EST
    they are not required to provide it any earlier than the date set by the court for doing so.

    As for the poll, I think you have to take into account the fact that this case has not been tried in the media, there has not been a constant dumping of information and evidence from the prosecution's office.  All most people know is what has been in the media, and that flow of information to the public basically stopped once the charges were brought.

    If anything, and as strange as it seems, by refusing to put all the information out there in the public domain, the prosecution is preserving for the potential jury pool the concept of innocent-until-proven-guilty.  

    I know you desperately want those poll numbers to mean that the prosecution is incompetent, or that the prosecutor is the worst person in the world, but I don't think that's what they say.

    Parent

    Gray family attorney lied (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 24, 2015 at 05:03:29 PM EST
    Mosby's long-time friend, mentor and personal lawyer, Billy Murphy, who also represents the Gray family lied about the "80% severe spinal cord and crushed voice box".

    The spinal cord was intact. There is no mention of a crushed voice box.

    The spinal cord was intact, but showed extensive edema, traumatic contusion (bruising) and necrosis of the cervical spinal cord, extension of the necrosis into the lower brainstem and high thoracic regions, and secondary, non-traumatic changes due to probable re-perfusion injury of the entire spinal cord."


    Guess you missed this part: (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 24, 2015 at 05:46:36 PM EST
    Examination of the scans done in the hospital revealed the following:

    A computed tomography scan (CT) of the head and neck was negative for intracranial bleeding or fractures of the facial bones or skull, but demonstrated an unstable C4/C5 fracture/dislocation with high grade spinal canal compromise as well as a left vertebral artery injury. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study, performed revealed a tiny left interventricular hemorrhage, near transection of the spinal cord, rupture of multiple stabilizing ligaments at the level of C4/C5, extensive edema of soft tissues of the posterior neck region and a small fluid collection anterior to C3 through C7; no other abnormalities of the uninjured cervical vertebral column, spinal cord or adjacent soft tissues were described in the report.

    What does it mean to have a near transection of the spinal cord?  Well, here's something from Johns Hopkins Medicine:

    Acute spinal cord injury (SCI) is due to a traumatic injury that can either result in a bruise (also called a contusion), a partial tear, or a complete tear (called a transection) in the spinal cord. SCI is more common in men and young adults.

    You do realize, I hope, that what was observed at autopsy was the condition of the spinal cord post-surgery, don't you?

    Parent

    Just one of many (2.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 24, 2015 at 06:17:21 PM EST
    Unexplainable contradictions in this farce of an autopsy report.

    Definition of intact in English:
    adjective

    [OFTEN AS COMPLEMENT]
    Not damaged or impaired in any way; complete:
    the church was almost in ruins, but its tower remained intact

    From OED

    Parent

    I realize your little pea brain has (3.00 / 4) (#176)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 24, 2015 at 07:10:13 PM EST
    limited capacity but try to cram this into it:

    The report describes the CT scans and MRIs done in the hospital after Gray was transported there.  It says, in plain English, that near transection of the spinal cord is visible on those scans.

    This was Freddie's condition before being treated and his injuries surgically repaired, to the extent they could be.

    The autopsy describes the condition of the body and all its various parts after death, after surgery.

    If Freddie had not been able to be resuscitated, had he been pronounced dead at the scene, what the medical examiner would have seen on autopsy would be what the hospital scans showed - near transection of the spinal cord.

    Parent

    NEAR (3.50 / 2) (#177)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 24, 2015 at 07:51:33 PM EST
    as in almost but not quite.

    NEAR transection.

    It was not "severed". The imaging showed a lesion and contusion.

    Parent

    Uhhhhmmm, ... yeah (none / 0) (#181)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 24, 2015 at 10:22:08 PM EST
    That's probably why she said "near transaction".

    Oy.

    Parent

    Reading comprehension required (3.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 24, 2015 at 08:02:27 PM EST
    "As the fracture/dislocation was considered very unstable, it is unclear whether the spinal cord lesion was complete, as documented in admission imaging studies, or in the spectrum of spinal concussion or contusion at the time of the fracture/dislocation in the van with evolution of the spinal cord injury during the movement of Mr. Gray to the bench, the subsequent stops and the motion of the van."


    Parent
    Yes, I suggest you get some. (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 24, 2015 at 08:52:46 PM EST
    Soon.

    Until then, I'm ignoring you; maybe someone else has the patience for this.

    Parent

    Mosby's gave her buddy Murphy the autopsy (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 24, 2015 at 06:14:19 PM EST
    Several days ago., according to the Baltimore Sun. Meanwhile the defense is still waiting.

    William H. Murphy Jr. said Tuesday that he had received a copy of the report several days ago. But in a statement Wednesday, he said he was "dismayed that despite our repeated requests, we have not yet received the autopsy photographs, the medical examiner's autopsy notes, the tests performed on Mr. Gray's body, and everything else upon which the medical examiner relied."

    Poor Murphy is dismayed. Imagine how the defense must fee.

    Parent

    You have no idea if he "lied" (none / 0) (#171)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 24, 2015 at 05:24:25 PM EST
    You have no idea what he was basing his comment on.

    Parent
    He was basing his comment (1.50 / 2) (#172)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 24, 2015 at 05:39:52 PM EST
    On the spinal cord that was proven to be intact.

    Why do you hate science, denier?

    Parent

    No, he was not (none / 0) (#180)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 24, 2015 at 10:05:25 PM EST
    You claimed he was "lying" when he made his statements.  You have no idea of the basis for his statements, but for them to be a "lie" he had to have known they were false when he made them.  You, of course, are basing this on your own, silly interpretation of an autopsy report that you yourself have called a "farce".

    I don't hate science.  I do hate wingnuts with poor reading comprehension and logic skills.

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#182)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 01:04:23 PM EST
    So where is "crushed voice box" mentioned anywhere in this autopsy report?

    Do you think they were so incompetent that they completely missed it or do you think there is a conspiracy to not mention it?

    So use your masterful "logic skills"  and explain Murphy making such a ridiculous unsubstantiated claim.

    And I am certainly not a wingnut so please dispense with your prejudice, intolerance and bigotry. It does not apply here.

    Parent

    No, I think ... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 02:34:22 PM EST
    ... you have no evidence he actually "lied" (I.e. knew the statement was false when he made it) since you have no idea what he was using as the basis for his  statement.  I don't know if they're true or not, not do I know the basis of his  statement.  Then again, I don't need to, since I'm not the one claiming he "lied".

    BTW - If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and uses logic like a duck  ...

    Parent

    If memory serves, the "crushed (3.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 03:16:20 PM EST
    voice box" came from the family, which is where Murphy got it - and it was always my thought that the family got that from the doctors who treated him, but I could be wrong.

    Also, it's worth noting that what has been published was only an excerpt, not the full text; the part published seems to focus on the spinal cord injury, and there is no way to know if there is more that addresses his larynx.

    It's also worth noting - again - that the autopsy was conducted on someone who had received both medical and surgical treatment for his presenting injuries; I have to think this is addressed in more depth in the report - more than what we have seen.

    I'm passing this on to you because I can't engage with the other guy any more - it's like talking to a wall.  A not-very-bright wall, at that.

    Parent

    Yep ... All excellent points (none / 0) (#185)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 25, 2015 at 05:42:52 PM EST
    Particularly that last one.

    Parent
    This one photo (2.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 02:35:47 PM EST
    Yeah, it says the tinfoil is ... (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 05:15:31 PM EST
    ... getting too thick.

    You need to loosen it or you'll lose circulation.

    Parent

    says what? (none / 0) (#159)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 13, 2015 at 02:39:42 PM EST
    not seeing the connection here

    ???

    Parent

    not seeing the connection (none / 0) (#161)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 08:28:29 AM EST
    not seeing the connection here ???

    Really!!!

    and yet there they are -- connecting with each other right in front of you in living color -- and black and white -- Maidens of Mendacity.

    Parent

    More like ... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 08:59:27 AM EST
    ... Titan of Tinfoil.

    Parent
    i see a photo (none / 0) (#166)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 01:04:23 PM EST
    of Marilyn Mosby and Rachel Dolezal at an NAACP function

    we know that Dolezal is president of the Spokane chapter - why wouldn't Mosby also be connected to the NAACP? why wouldn't they pose for a photo?

    we know that Dolezal is a liar, & very likely a liar with some serious mental health issues

    & i think that Mosby is an incompetent, grandstanding demagogue, but why should that mean she's also a liar?

    Parent

    Think: Pretenders (3.50 / 2) (#168)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 03:13:21 PM EST
    One pretending to be black and the other pretending to be a prosecutor.

    Both pretending to be in search of justice.

    Parent

    Marilyn Mosby (none / 0) (#169)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 14, 2015 at 03:32:19 PM EST
    actually is State's Attorney for Baltimore, duly elected

    & she actually wants to do some very good things, to judge by what she said during her campaign, such as countering the "snitches get stitches" ethic with protection for witnesses, & taking other actions to repair relationships between the police & high-crime Baltimore neighorhoods

    Rachel Dolezal no doubt wants to do good things as well, & she is also an elected NAACP leader, though it's unclear whether she would have been elected as a WOW (woman of whiteness)

    Parent

    The Baltimore Sun and 18 other news organizations asked a judge Friday to deny prosecutors' request for a gag order in the case against six Baltimore police officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray, who sustained a severe spinal injury in police custody. [...]

    The other news outlets are The Associated Press, Hearst Stations Inc., Sinclair Broadcasting, CBS Broadcasting Inc., Scripps Media Inc., ABC News, Bloomberg News, Buzzfeed, CNN, Fox News, Gannett, NBC News, National Public Radio, The Guardian, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press.



    IMO... (none / 0) (#4)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 03:39:37 PM EST
    ...there should be a gag order on opinion.  We know what the attorneies thing, one side thinks the cops did it, the side thinks it's a bunch of BS.

    Seems like there should be some sort of decision process for releasing actual information in high profile cases.

    The autopsy should be made available.

    Parent

    I really hope this case has a strong judge (none / 0) (#6)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 04:29:43 PM EST
    Someone who will make decisions based on the law not public opinion  

    Parent
    "Based on the law"= Decisions I like (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 08:27:03 PM EST
    "Public opinion" - Decisions I don't like.

    Parent
    motion struck (none / 0) (#51)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 08:43:21 AM EST
    the news says that the judge has struck the request . . .

    I assume from 1st amendment and moral grounds that the public should have access to the report . . . but I think that the reasons for striking it are different . . .

    Parent

    I believe you are confusing the (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 08:55:41 AM EST
    motion for a gag order with the motion for a protective order.

    The motion for a gag order was rejected, on the basis that it was filed in the Circuit Court before the case had been moved there from the District Court.  It would not surprise me to see it re-filed now that the case is in the Circuit Court.

    The motion for a protective order is a separate motion seeking to keep the autopsy report out of the public arena; I do not believe that has been ruled on, as the defense still has to file its answer.

    Can you explain why you think the public needs to have access to the autopsy report?  I truly don't see a compelling need for it, other than to give media outlets something to flog for however many days they can wring something out of it.  

    Parent

    public access to autopsy report . . . (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 09:07:44 AM EST
    "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."
    --Brandeis, 1856-1941

    In the absence of a strong and compelling reason to withhold the autopsy, which is a matter of simple fact . . . even if there were to be 2 or 3 or 4 autopsies with somewhat different conclusions . . .
    the autopsy findings are a matter of fact to which the public is entitled to know and discuss today . . . The autopsy is a matter of fact upon which the public is entitled to make decisions today . . .

    And if by some strange chance there was something in the autopsy which turns out to be exculpatory . . . exculpating men who did not put the guy in seat-belts . . . the men who are charged have the right to have the autopsy findings be a part of public pressure brought on the office to drop or reduce the charges . . . on the highly unlikely chance that there is something that helps exculpate them for their egregiously poor conduct . . .


    Parent

    I'm asking you why you think you are (3.50 / 2) (#57)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 09:42:10 AM EST
    entitled to have access to the report at this point in the process.

    What decisions does the public have to make on the basis of the report?  Whether the accused are guilty of the charges?  I thought that was a decision for the jury that will hear the case.

    Here's the problem I have: we have somehow become accustomed to these high profile cases being tried in the public square - now people just expect it.  Demand it. It has generated an entire industry of experts, commentators, television shows, true-crime groupies.  To what purpose?  Justice?  How so?

    That you want to know now isn't the same as your having the right to know now; if it was your case, and you were the defendant, then of course you would have that right.  But as an onlooker?  No, I don't think so, not at this stage.  

    Parent

    public decision (none / 0) (#58)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 10:16:13 AM EST
    Every day the public makes decisions about whether or not to protest in various ways and whether or not to march from Selma to the capital or whatever else it is that they do.  Every day the "public" draws its own conclusions about matters such as the guilt or innocence of OJ Simpson or of Zimmerman or of a dozen others . . .

    As far as the court system is concerned, then, sure, it is up to the jury to decide, but we will in a society in which people who are "members of the public" and "not part of the court system" pray and/or speak and/or protest and/or care and/or fundraise and/or whatever.

    We are all entitled to the facts . . . unless in those very rare cases of actual national security it is a matter that only spies should know.  You and I and dozens and hundreds of other people make society better or worse by what we say and do and how we pray or write on our blog or in our newspapers.  I am white and I suspect the officers are guilty of manslaughter or something similar, but the fact remains that sunlight is an excellent disinfectant . . . and if we are going to live in a society in which public action improves or deproves things, we should have the facts.

    You think we are better off being in ignorance?

    Parent

    supposing (none / 0) (#59)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 10:21:02 AM EST
    I believe right now that the officers are guilty of something like manslaughter for engaging in a rough ride without Gray being in a seatbelt.

    Lets suppose against all reason and available evidence so far that Gray was dead before the van starting moving . . . and that the autopsy somehow concludes this.

    Then . . . what . . . the officers are guilty of gross stupidity and not manslaughter . . .

    Parent

    In the absence of a strong and compelling reason to withhold the autopsy findings . . . from some people at this time . . .

    a reason that you or the state of whatever is welcome to attempt to provide . . . a reason that you have not provided, it appears . . .

    the public and you and I should have the right to know the results of the autopsy . . .

    Parent

    Autopsy results are not a matter of (3.50 / 2) (#64)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 12:05:51 PM EST
    public record, so the burden is on you to provide a compelling reason why the report should be made public, not the other way around.

    The report will not be withheld from the defense, nor from experts engaged to review it, or those likely to be called to testify about it.

    It will, eventually, be in the record.

    No one says you can't have an opinion about the case, the evidence, the defendants, the prosecution, or anything or anyone else you want to have an opinion about, but people are tried by juries - and sometimes just by judges - not by the collective opinions of the public.

    Parent

    the autopsy results (none / 0) (#65)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 12:19:16 PM EST
    I could be wrong, but somebody or some entity probably paid for an autopsy or "the" autopsy to be done and it was probably done with tax dollars and for a public purpose.  

    Other than keeping our launch codes and entry codes away from Chinese or Russian or Iranian spies . . . or persons within certain nations who provide us with information . . .

    The autopsy and its findings are probably already the property of the people of the state of Maryland or whatever state you folks are in . . .  You paid for it . . .  and some of you would like to read it . . . today . . .

    Parent

    Not everything is a matter of (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 12:44:30 PM EST
    public record, nor do I think everything should be, autopsy records being one of them; I can't speak for you, but I do not think we should be able to just go snooping around in the autopsy records of people we don't know, for whatever reason we want.

    You can't see death and birth records, either - do you think those should be public?  How about tax returns?  Want someone looking at yours?  How about adoption records?  

    Court dockets, probate records, arrest records are all public information, unless sealed for a particular reason.  Some things aren't public, and shouldn't be, without a compelling case for releasing them.


    Parent

    By that reasoning (none / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 12:41:35 PM EST
    Because we pay for government buildings with tax dollars we should be able to have total access to them.

    So  you "would like to read it . . . today . . ."

    It sounds like a personal problem to me.


    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 12:45:04 PM EST
    While autopsy reports are generally public records, Maryland law (as many states, I imagine) allows for those reports to remain confidential if the case is subject to an ongoing investigation.

    Parent
    Well, I learn something every day... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 01:29:53 PM EST
    Little did I know that for a non-family member, a check for $120 will get me a medical examiner's report.

    Did not know this.

    Here's the form.

    Parent

    Maryland statute: (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 01:10:43 PM EST
    This link didn't work for me. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 01:25:59 PM EST
    Tried looking it up, but don't have the patience today.

    Parent
    Second try: (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 02:10:46 PM EST
    10.35.01.14

    .14 Release of Medical Examiner's Records.

    A. Individual files of the Chief Medical Examiner are confidential medical records protected from disclosure under the provisions of State Government Article, §§4-301 and 10-611 et seq., Annotated Code of Maryland.

    B. An exception to these confidential medical records is the official medical examiner's autopsy report. This report is a public record and is generally subject to disclosure under State Government Article, §§10-611 et seq., Annotated Code of Maryland, unless the case is subject to an ongoing investigation, or other appropriate reason for denial of disclosure exists.

    Parent

    ongoing investigation (none / 0) (#78)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 06:55:20 PM EST
    This [autopsy] report is a public record and is generally subject to disclosure under State Government Article, §§10-611 et seq., Annotated Code of Maryland, unless the case is subject to an ongoing investigation, or other appropriate reason for denial of disclosure exists.

    So the question is:

    Once the case has moved from the police investigators to the state prosecutors, can anyone honestly declare to the court that that there is still an ongoing investigation.

    Parent

    Yes. Frequently prosectors request additional (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 10:44:32 PM EST
    investigation by the law enforcement agence and the investigators employed by the prosecutor's office as well as labs analyzing verious aspects of the evedence.

    Parent
    So.... out of curiosity (none / 0) (#73)
    by sj on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 03:03:12 PM EST
    I just took a look at your blog.

    How is it, I wonder, that you have remained unconvicted.

    Parent

    Ha . . . (none / 0) (#81)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 10:11:44 PM EST
    Why have I not been convicted of a variety of things?

    I do not know if anyone has a good answer for that  . . .  Maybe I am fairly nice and my crimes do not rise to the level of public harm you are thinking there might be . . .

    Perhaps investigating me is regarded as not sufficiently helpful or likely to yield results in comparison with other projects . . .

    Parent

    oh . . . (none / 0) (#82)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 10:15:24 PM EST
    I do have several acquaintances among the police of Seattle . . . and I think that they have viewed some or much of either of my two websites on greenlakewalking . . . cause when I created the two websites, I sent the links to them and to the news media . . .

    my conduct on that topic does not rise to the level of problem needing to be solved by the usual standard of much of Seattle . . .

    z

    Parent

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 05:52:55 PM EST
    In the absence of a strong and compelling reason to withhold the autopsy findings . . . from some people at this time . . .

    a reason that you or the state of whatever is welcome to attempt to provide . . . a reason that you have not provided, it appears . . .

    It's not up to people here to justify the state's rationale to you.  The reasons were provided in the motion.

    Parent

    I Thess 5:21 (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 03:37:23 AM EST
    A peculiar man once wrote

    "Test all things."  His attitude is the foundation for modern science, law and several other things, though he is not the first to have enunciated his statement.

    Do you mind if I or the judge takes a skeptical attitude to claims of the state as to why things such as an autopsy report need be kept secret for now?

    Parent

    Not in the least (none / 0) (#92)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 07:45:56 AM EST
    Skepticism is a good thing, particularly for a judge.  My point, OTOH, is that the "state of whatever" HAS provided their reasons as part of their motion.

    Parent
    IF you wish me to believe (2.00 / 1) (#86)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 10:27:57 PM EST
    If you wish me to believe that possessing and/or reading the autopsy findings seriously undermines the credibility, impartiality and fairness of a future hypothetical jury . . . or that the fact of media discussion of such an autopsy has that effect . . .

    If you wish me to believe such things, then, yes, you must justify, defend and argue here for the state's motion to suppress the autopsy findings for the time being from public knowledge.

    Parent

    Ahhh, I see the problem (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 07:33:44 AM EST
    You're under the mistaken impression that I care what you "believe".

    Parent
    The reasons (none / 0) (#76)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 06:14:54 PM EST
    The reasons were provided in the motion.

    Do you have a link to that motion?

    Parent

    Nope n/t (none / 0) (#79)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 07:16:12 PM EST
    So (none / 0) (#85)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 10:25:22 PM EST
    So -- No link.

    That's par for your course and everything you post.

    Parent

    Awe ... So sad for you (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 07:31:44 AM EST
    MY point was not to debate merits of the motion, but to point outout that the claim that they can't/haven't given their reasons for their motion is duly.  They already have.  Consequently, I don't need a copy of the motion to prove MY point.

    YOUR point, OTOH, is to try to use the autopsy report (or the motion) to attack the prosecutors, so you're desperately seeking a copy of either.  Or, barring that, you'll just do what you usually do, ... dream up some, baseless, fact free, evidence free, tinfoil theory.  

    Awe, ... to  bad for you.  You'll need to do your OWN research.  Or just do what you usually do.

    BTW - Love the idea of YOU complaining about others not providing links.  Like Rush calling people "fat".

    Parent

    the aut findings are not changeable . . . (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 09:14:05 AM EST
    Whether the aut findings are released now or at trial or whenever, the first set of findings is no longer subject to change . . .

    There is nothing about them that changes any other facts in the case . . .  there is no legitimate reason that the public itself could not possess some of the basic factual items of the case, facts which are now forever locked into history, and ponder them all they wish . . . in print on the Net or at the water cooler . . .  

    Are there other similar items that you believe should have been withheld from the public?  The route the van took?  The nature of the knife?  whether or not Gray was in a seatbelt?

    Parent

    The MD legislature ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 07:27:12 PM EST
    ... begs to differ.

    Parent
    re the Md Legislature (none / 0) (#84)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 10:23:48 PM EST
    In that case, perhaps I am wrong, and it would not be the first time I am wrong . . . or perhaps, this is not the first time that the Md legislature is or has been wrong . . .

    "For you [Erasmus] say--'so great a number of the most learned men, approved by the consent of so many ages, has no little weight with you. Among whom were, some of the most extensively acquainted with the sacred writings, and also some of the most holy martyrs, many renowned for miracles, together with the more recent theologians, and so many colleges, councils, bishops, and popes: so that, in a word, on your side of the balance are (you say) learning, genius, multitude, greatness, highness, fortitude, sanctity, miracles, and what not!--But that, on my side, are only a Wycliffe and a Laurentius Valla (although Augustine also, whom you pass by, is wholly on my side), who in comparison with the others, are of no weight whatever; that Luther, therefore, stands alone, a private individual, an upstart, with his followers, in whom there is neither that learning nor that genius, nor multitude, nor magnitude, nor sanctity, nor miracles.

    *

    I confess, my friend Erasmus, that you may well be swayed by all these. These had such weight with me for upwards of ten years, that I think no other mortal was ever so much under their sway. And I myself thought it incredible that this Troy of ours, which had for so long a time, and through so many wars stood invincible, could ever be taken.

    Parent

    If that was the case, ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 07:41:22 AM EST
    ... the law would be overturned by the MD appellate courts.  It has not been overturned.

    So either you know something the MD legislature and courts do not, or your wrong and there are legitimate reasons for withholding the autopsy reports during an investigation.

    That's an EASY one ...

    Parent

    the weight of history & numbers (none / 0) (#93)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:38:51 AM EST
    The weight of history and numbers of persons appeals to you . . .

    I don't have a problem with in some cases withholding the autopsy findings during certain parts of certain investigations . . .

    I do when there is slim to no chance that withholding the autopsy results will have any beneficial effect on continued or continuing investigation or information gathering . . .

    It appears to me, as a superficial observer, that at least some of those who have been posting in favor of suppressing the autopsy results, have been doing so with the motive of suppressing discussion of them over the water cooler or on TV or in the news.

    If suppressing the autopsy results means that there will be 2nd autopsy done and by suppressing it, we are more likely to have an honest and unbiased report, then, sure . . . but if the purpose is to prevent a commentator or citizen from knowing the thing or discussing it, then, I don't believe that that is a legitimate reason . . .

    If by suppressing some autopsy report in the future we are enabled to trap or track down some criminal, then sure, but the simple motive of suppression of discussion of it is not sufficient.

    By the way, given the numbers of mistakes and errors made by courts and legislatures in the last 200 years, then, you might admit that in some cases, here and there, some individuals do know more than the courts and legislatures . . . Or, shall we go back to slaves not persons or separate and equal . . .

    How about Whitney v California?

    Parent

    The prosecutor's office has made (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 10:26:40 AM EST
    it clear that it does not intend to litigate this case in the public square, but in the courts, where it belongs.

    Parent
    court where it belongs (1.75 / 4) (#95)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 11:01:05 AM EST
    And what "court" would that be?

    She doesn't seem to be able to find the right court?

    She's the one who started out pleading her case in the court of public opinion, and then when it came time for the other side to speak, she calls for a gag order.

    Maybe she should file in Judge Judy's Court -- the place of her last big win.

    Parent

    Reading the charges is not (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 11:31:46 AM EST
    "pleading her case."

    I can see where you'd prefer for this case to be the circus so many other high-profile cases have been, but I don't think that's an atmosphere that contributes anything to the process.

    Parent

    Trayvon's autopsy release & controversy (none / 0) (#97)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 11:26:47 AM EST
    I see here that the autopsy of Trayvon Martin was released long before the Zimmerman trial . . .  I don't see where anyone has claimed that the release of Martin's autopsy prior to trial created prejudice in the minds of actual or potential jurors . . .

    Maybe I missed some obscure motion by the state or defense . . .

    The verdict came out . . . in a way I had expected and would have found . . . and in a way that many legal experts said was perfectly expected given the facts and the presentation of the case . . .  I don't remember any of them claiming that the early release of the autopsy report had in any way prejudiced the jury . . .

    Parent

    Different state, different laws (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 07:28:39 AM EST
    And the fact that you "didn't see" someone objecting to the release of the autopsy report means nothing.

    Parent
    Actually, is not the numbers (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 11:26:46 AM EST
    ... it's the comparative expertise and knowledge as compared to your opinion of what the law should be.

    Parent
    re Trayvon's autopsy (3.00 / 3) (#99)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 11:32:26 AM EST
    Do you perhaps believe that the release of the Trayvon Martin autopsy report and/or a dozen other similar items being a part of general public knowledge to those who read the newspapers or go to cnn.com in some way prejudiced the jury in the Zimmerman case?

    Whatever law or general rule that Maryland might or might not have . . . whatever argument that the state AG office might or might not have made . . .

    they are humans and they are subject to error and most of all, they are subject to error due to internal bias and motivations . . .

    Would you perhaps agree that the jury in the Zimmerman trial made their decision completely apart or nearly completely separate from any personal or public knowledge of the autopsy report due to its release prior to the trial?

    Why is this case so different that autopsy report findings would in some alleged way hypothetically, somehow, by some extraordinary means, prejudice members of a potential jury?

    Parent

    How many times must it be (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 12:52:39 PM EST
    pointed out to you that the prosecutor in this case has stated, quite clearly, that she will not be trying this case in the court of public opinion.

    Do I have to repeat that?  Can you take a moment to fully process this?

    The reality is that she may not get her way on the autopsy report - a judge may rule that she cannot keep it out of the public domain.  The circus that will ensue is exactly why she is seeking to limit pre-trial disclosure of the report to the parties, their attorneys and experts on both sides.  It will contribute nothing to the cause of justice.

    Parent

    the trouble with this . . . (none / 0) (#141)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 01:09:12 AM EST
    How many times must it be pointed out to you that the prosecutor in this case has stated, quite clearly, that she will not be trying this case in the court of public opinion.

    . . . is that too many people, on May 1, saw & heard "the prosecutor in this case" speak out of both sides of her supposedly closed mouth, no matter how many times you choose to parrot what "the prosecutor in this case" clearly & disingenuously stated (though i, for one, unconditionally support your First Amendment right to do so, as well as your right to believe whatever you want to believe)

    & no, what i am saying here has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that "the prosecutor in this case" announced the charges publicly, as it was certainly her right to do

    Parent

    That train of thought ... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 03:19:39 PM EST
    ... and logic has derailed.  No one is claiming the prosecutor, judge, legislature is infallible, but they have legitimate reasons for following the law, and the law had legitimate reasons for withholding the autopsy report during an ongoing investigation (and sometimes even beyond the investigation).  The fact that you have a burning desire to see it NOW is irrelevant.

    Parent
    whether or not the report . . . (none / 0) (#103)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 10:03:41 PM EST
    whether or not the judge orders the suppression of the autopsy report is a matter of his or her own discretion, based upon his own best judgment as applied to particular facts of a particular case in a particular situation.

    We have already had at least one somewhat comparable situation in which all parties involved, prosecution, defense, news commentators and the general public, regard the release of the autopsy report or reports prior to the actual trial as being completely non-prejudicial to the jury and irrelevant to the outcome of the case.

    You or others seem to think there is something special about this particular autopsy report that makes it more likely to prejudice members of the upcoming jury pool?  OK . . . offer me some evidence and reason for that . . .

    Don't simply accuse me of being wrongly obsessed with the opportunity to read a report . . . I don't really care about the report . . . I suspect most of the officers are guilty of misconduct . . .  I just don't believe in the careless suppression of information . . . just like I don't believe in many cases of suppressing open court proceedings on the basis of national security so that the NSA doesn't have to tell things about who they have been monitoring and how . . . or in the 1950s case, in which the US Supreme created a national security precedent based upon the government lying to them . . .

    routine suppression of information, without good and sound cause . . .

    Wow . . .  Perhaps you and your fellows would have  convicted Peter Zenger of seditious libel.  You do know him . . . do you not?

    Parent

    I don't know if you're being (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 10:18:30 PM EST
    deliberately obtuse, but it's starting not to matter.

    I don't know of anyone who thinks there's anything particularly special about what's in the report.  

    What I think - based on what the prosecutor has said repeatedly - is that this is about not trying the case in the court of public opinion.  

    You keep forgetting - or you're deliberately ignoring - that no one is trying to keep the report out of the hands of those with a direct role in the case, and there is no indication the report will not become part of the public domain once the trial begins.

    You are obsessed.  You are a dog with a bone who won't let go.  Just stop.  Go take a walk in your skimpy underwear and offer to give hugs to people.

    Parent

    on being obsessed . . . (2.00 / 3) (#108)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 06:29:17 AM EST
    at about the same time I posted on the subject of suppressing the autopsy findings . . . I posted on 3 or 4 other topics on the Tuesday open thread.  No one posted in response to some of them and the other responses were not substantive . . .  I created a gofundme campaign for some minor med bills for Dajerria .  . .

    obsession . . .

    the domination of one's thoughts or feelings by a persistent idea, image, desire, etc.

    *

    No one argued or disagreed substantively with me on nearly a half a dozen topics, including "universal restrooms" and "arming people with pepper spray to reduce assault in Capitol Hill," with the one exception of claiming that somewhere, somehow, there is a need to suppress the autopsy of Gray . . .

    and because I push back against people making mere assertions . . .

    I am obsessed?

    Parent

    and the relationship is . . . (1.00 / 1) (#105)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 11:59:55 PM EST
    I guess we get to look forward to reading how the judge rules on the subject of temporarily suppressing public dissemination of the autopsy report . . .!

    Parent
    Since we we, or at least I, do not (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 12:47:36 AM EST
    know what the autopsy report contains, I would reserve judgment as to whether the autopsy report contains anything "special."  It would seem to be highly relevant, given the subject of the autopsy died after being transported to a hospital a week after he was arrested and transported by law enforcement to the pre-trial detention facility.

    Parent
    the state secrets privilege . . . (none / 0) (#117)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 10:16:58 AM EST
    The declassified accident report, released in 2000, is available online, and indicates that the B-29 crashed because a fire started in an engine.[12] This document also reports that the plaintiffs received a settlement of $170,000. The settlement date was effective June 22, 1953, some three months after the Supreme Court ruling.[13] In consideration for the money paid by the government, the case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning all future litigation on this case was forfeited. The radio program This American Life reported in 2009, that, contrary to claims made in the case, the accident report contained no information on the secret equipment on the plane except to note that secret equipment was present, a fact which had been reported in the press at the time. The program interviewed the daughter of one of the crash victims who described the government's claims in the case as fraudulent.[14] . . .

    There has been much discussion about the use of government privilege to classify information. On the one hand, there is the need to protect government secrecy. On the other, there is always suspicion that "classified documents" are merely a way to cover-up government malfeasance or bad faith actions of the executive branch.

    Parent

    Oh, for the love of God...please stop. (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 10:29:14 AM EST
    Seriously, you have wandered so far afield and have REFUSED to address anything but what your own fevered imagination is conjuring up.

    If Mosby gets her protective order, the report will be made available to the parties involved, to experts on both sides, and to anyone or any agency that may be called upon to testify about it or is asked to investigate something in it.  The entire report will no doubt become part of the public record at trial.

    She may not get the order.  In fact, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if she doesn't.  I guess we will know relatively soon one way or the other.

    Parent

    IF you wish . . . (none / 0) (#123)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 11:51:46 AM EST
    You are welcome to remind us of what you allege I have "refused to address."

    I could make the guess that your assertions and/or her assertions I have "refused to address" are either:

    #1 Mosby doesn't wish to argue the case outside of the courtroom

    and/or

    #2 Mosby doesn't wish to prejudice potential members of the jury.

    Do you have another assertion you believe I should consider addressing?

    I stated:

    #1 releasing the autopsy findings and/or allowing witnesses to speak to media does not obligate Mosby and company to argue their case outside the courtroom;
    --do you agree or disagree?

    #2a lots of other autopsy results in lots of other trials and/or circumstances have been and continue to be released prior to trial without such a release being considered likely or liable to prejudice the members of the jury . . .
    --do you agree or disagree?

    and

    #2b It appears to be very rare to almost never that prosecutors, statistically speaking, ask the court to place the autopsy findings under seal or orders requiring gag or other such things . . .

    #2b1 It appears that if and when courts do grant requests to gag autopsy information that they order a hold on release of photos so as to avoid inflaming passions . . .

    #2c The requests of Mosby for such orders therefore appear to be extremely unusual  .  . .

    and

    #2d the government in general appears to have at times told lies in order to continue suppressing certain information despite requests . . .

    #2e people have the willingness and ability to deceive themselves when their own interests are at stake in some way . . .

    Parent

    unconvicted (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by sj on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 01:29:33 PM EST
    you are blog clogging in the worst way. Please stop it.

    Parent
    We "seem to"? (none / 0) (#109)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 07:19:49 AM EST
    When someone uses these kinds of phrases, you can be sure that it's part of some silly, specious, straw claim.  Not to mention the flawed logic, analogies, and accusations in the form if "questions" ... all signs that someone has absolutely no evidence to support their claims.

    Sorry, not my job to justify anything to you.

    Parent

    Oculus said we we and then "I". (none / 0) (#114)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:32:04 AM EST
    You're both right.  Now please don't attack me Yman because you're way to bright and fast for this layman.  I truly enjoy reading your excellent critiques of other peoples lame statements regarding the law.  I made that mistake a few years ago, and I remember you corrected me in a very kind manner.

    Parent
    Not sure what you mean (none / 0) (#132)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 05:18:40 PM EST
    My objection was not to his choice of singular/plural pronoun, but his decision to try to put words in the mouths of others rather than address what they're actually saying ... and his use of straw claims in general.

    Parent
    She I believe (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 05:50:59 PM EST
    fwiw

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 05:52:31 PM EST
    didnt parent.  Never mind

    Parent
    Not your job. True. My reply (none / 0) (#115)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:36:01 AM EST
    was to Anne's comment.

    Parent
    Irony (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by sj on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 01:31:42 PM EST
    Not your job. True. My reply (none / 0) (#115)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 08:36:01 AM MDT

    was to Anne's comment.

    Yman's reply was to unconvicted.

    Parent
    by the way (none / 0) (#52)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 08:48:55 AM EST
    while I think the officers were, or some of them were, guilty of serious misconduct . . . and some sort of manslaughter . . .

    Isn't it a bit strange to hold a press conference and lay out your charges, and then seek a universal gag order?  It does not seem fully fair . . . and I think  most of the officers are guilty . . .

    Parent

    media? (none / 0) (#2)
    by thomas rogan on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 03:29:40 PM EST
    She as much as convicted the cops in the media in her initial statement announcing that she was charging them with such things as "false imprisonment".  It was all done to abort the riots.
    If the autopsy showed something which would exonerate some or all of the cops then much easier for the city to save it for the trial and deal with riots afterwards (if there are some acquittals) than to have months or rumbling.  also, that way Mosby can leave any innocent cops of the six dangling in the wind hoping that they turn.  

    "As much" (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 05, 2015 at 09:12:26 PM EST
    Heh.

    It's funny how some people feel those kinds of qualifiers license to just make $hit up.

    Parent

    Every day I pick up my newspaper, (4.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 05, 2015 at 10:08:56 PM EST
    or turn on the local news, and I hear reports about shootings and murders and stabbings: this person was arrested and charged with murder, that person was charged with manslaughter, on and on and on.  Mug shots of the accused, a rundown of that person's criminal history.

    I'm sure you see and read the same kinds of things in your local media.

    Even with this kind of information being readily available every day in the media, and with arrest records readily available, you want to make the case that just by making the charges against 6 members of law enforcement public that's tantamount to a conviction and poisoning of the jury pool?  Do you say those things when you see mug shots of two local men who've been arrested for shooting someone?  Does the TV broadcast of those charges make you angry?  Or is it just because these particular arrestees are police officers?

    I don't think you can argue that the charges should be some kind of secret, or that prosecutors should avoid bringing certain charges against police officers because they make the public think a certain way about them, and also argue that all the evidence should be made public, but I've seen one comment after another that is doing exactly that.


    Parent

    Be fair (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 04:04:12 PM EST
    ...you want to make the case that just by making the charges against 6 members of law enforcement public that's tantamount to a conviction and poisoning of the jury pool?

    I don't know if the jury pool is being poisoned or not, and I'm not wading into that part of the argument, but this is just not the "ho-hum" murder and mug shot you see every night on the news. You're comparing apples and oranges.  This is a high-profile case that sparked protest and riots and a crime escalation, and was the lead on every station, both local and cable for a month - not to mention that every talk show was discussing it, lots of rhetoric was thrown around, there were social media campaigns going on etc.  You really feel there are many people in Baltimore City that don't have an opinion about this case?

    This isn't even in the same stratosphere as the kinds of cases you see every day on the news.

    Parent

    What exactly (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 04:08:19 PM EST
    is different except the cops have been charged?  Which btw is why it's gotten so much press.

    Other than the I dont see any big differences than Ferguson or Cleveland or on and on.

    Parent

    thank you (none / 0) (#28)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 06, 2015 at 04:14:53 PM EST
    & don't forget the straw man

    I don't think you can argue that the charges should be some kind of secret, or that prosecutors should avoid bringing certain charges against police officers because they make the public think a certain way about them

    not what the OP said

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by sj on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 12:15:34 AM EST
    you really had to stretch for that one. I don't see how Anne's phrasing is materially different from the "OP's" (that would be thomas rogan to the rest of us) statement that
    She as much as convicted the cops in the media in her initial statement announcing...

    And yet you found it so egregious that -- despite your consistent support for MT's crusade against the nefarious "2" rating -- you... rated it a "2".

    Apparently you manage cognitive dissonance just fine.

    Parent

    Yes the members of the rating crusade (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 08:22:34 AM EST
    are hilarious. Sprinkling "2"  ratings in the threads. Down ratings are just fine and dandy if they are doing the down rating.

    Do you think TAF's is attempting to "discouraging participation" or "encourage bullying" or start "blog clogging fights" since he strongly agreed with the statement that is what the dastardly "2" does?

    Parent

    correction (none / 0) (#40)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 02:25:57 PM EST
    Do you think TAF's is attempting to "discouraging participation" or "encourage bullying" or start "blog clogging fights" since he strongly agreed with the statement that is what the dastardly "2" does?

    she

    Parent

    The commenter was decrying the (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 07:35:57 AM EST
    fact that the public nature of the announcement of charges was tantamount to a conviction, and my point was there are "public" announcements all the time about people being charged with crimes - the only difference being that in this case, the people charged were members of law enforcement.

    That leads me to believe that he - and you, apparently - would have preferred the quieter form of public announcement: a blurb in the paper, a 10-second sound bite on the TV.

    But at the same time as this commenter is complaining about how public the announcement was, he is also complaining that the autopsy report has not been made public.

    For what purpose should these reports be put into the public's hands?  So the media and people on blogs can play medical/legal professional and second-guess the upcoming trial?  Morbid curiosity?

    My take on this was that the prosecutor's office is serious about not trying the case in the public square, that she is making what needs to be made available to the defense, and is trying not to poison the jury or make it impossible to seat a jury in the City of Baltimore.

    The protective order is part of that.  The gag order is also part of making sure we aren't going to be treated to daily leaks and grandstanding by defense attorneys and the FOP that any jury in any jurisdiction in the state would have to un-hear and un-read in order to be objective.

    As a resident of the state and someone who works downtown, I am pretty happy that I don't have to hear about this case multiple times a day.  And I really don't think that beating this case like a drum would do much for the general mood in the city, and continuing to ratchet up emotion leading up to a trial would be playing a dangerous game.  You may not like that that's part of the equation, but it is.

    Parent

    Um, no. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 03:05:03 PM EST
    But for a fun exercise, can you tell me the names of ANY of the homicide victims in Baltimore since June started (without looking it up) or any of the details of their deaths?  I'll give you a hint and tell you there have been 12 so far.

    See, you're a person who reads the news, and if YOU don't have a good knowledge of this information, most people probably don't either.  But you certainly knew about Freddie Gray.  We also don't see people protesting about these other deaths or rioting, so it isn't making the news. Potential jurors aren't experiencing it first hand, either by having their property destroyed, their work and travel disrupted (I believe your work schedule and commute were affected, yes?), or having it in their faces everywhere they go.

    That's why you're comparing apples and oranges.

    Parent

    oy (none / 0) (#44)
    by sj on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 03:15:33 PM EST
    Oy, is right. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 03:50:59 PM EST
    Apparently you can't see the difference either.

    Oh well.

    Parent

    Yay! (none / 0) (#48)
    by sj on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 06:40:23 PM EST
    A not "2" rating!!  Good job The Addams Family!!

    Yes, I believe I will be having me some fun for a day or two with that blatant bit of self righteous hypocrisy.

    (Not your hypocrisy, jb. I don't agree with you at all that their infamy should shield them from the consequences of their actions. But your position is consistent. And we're all entitled to own opinions.)

    Parent

    then you would be wrong (none / 0) (#41)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 02:27:28 PM EST
    leads me to believe that he - and you, apparently - would have preferred the quieter form of public announcement: a blurb in the paper, a 10-second sound bite on the TV.

    & still full of straw

    Parent

    Okay, so you do or you don't object to (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 03:02:23 PM EST
    Marilyn Mosby's public announcement of the charges?  Was there a public way to announce the charges that would not have gotten your back up?

    And what does anything I've said have to do with straw?  

    Do you object to the autopsy report being limited to prosecutors and the defense, designated experts and those who may be called to testify about it?  Do you feel the public has a compelling interest in access to the report, and if so, what is that interest?

    I fail to see the benefit of trying the case in the media; the less control that is exerted over the evidence in this case pre-trial, the greater the chance of distorting the process.  The trial will be open to the public; is that not sufficient?  Is the trial less fair because you and I and the media didn't have access to the autopsy report?

    If the idea is that by choosing to make a public announcement of the charges, Mosby now owes the accused the benefit of the public having full access to the evidence, then the commenter should have said so.  I don't happen to agree, but whatever.

    Parent

    answering your questions (none / 0) (#46)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 03:51:24 PM EST
    . . . so you do or you don't object to Marilyn Mosby's public announcement of the charges?

    i do not object at all to her having made the announcement publicly

    Was there a public way to announce the charges that would not have gotten your back up?

    yes, if the public announcement had not gone anywhere near this type of inflammatory & prejudicial language (as i have explained to you so many times that i don't understand why you're still asking):

    To the people of Baltimore and the demonstrators across America: I heard your call for "No justice, no peace." . . . to the youth of the city[,] I will seek justice on your behalf. This is a moment. This is your moment. You're at the forefront of this cause and as young people, our time is now.

    Do you object to the autopsy report being limited to prosecutors and the defense, designated experts and those who may be called to testify about it?

    no - see my comment #7

    And what does anything I've said have to do with straw?

    that would be the way you've put words in thomas rogan's mouth, then tried to put them in mine, then "refuted" what neither of us actually said, as you continued to do in the comment to which i am responding - also known as making sh!t up

    Parent

    Lordy (none / 0) (#47)
    by sj on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 06:29:52 PM EST
    You sure look hard for a way to take offense at something. Or anything.
    yes, if the public announcement had not gone anywhere near this type of inflammatory & prejudicial language (as i have explained to you so many times that i don't understand why you're still asking):

    To the people of Baltimore and the demonstrators across America: I heard your call for "No justice, no peace."
    Yeah, I think it's always better to ignore real feelings and address pretend ones.

    I know! We can say she is Far Left! Then it's fair game to hate on her and her honesty. There. That's settled.

    So next: I don't know who the "you" is that has been the beneficiary of so very many "explanations". I will allow that I have seen lots of sneering/scolding from you, however. And 2s. I've seen 2s.

    And, lastly, you still haven't shown how thomas' (you know, the OP?) original comment is materially different from Anne's interpretation. This I am most interested in seeing. It's possible for multiple interpretations of d@mn near any statement so I would like to know what you are seeing that I am not.

    That is a literally true statement. Don't go off on another tangent.

    Parent

    there's a link (none / 0) (#49)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 06:47:58 PM EST
    at the bottom of every comment that says "Parent"

    if you click the "Parent" link, you can see the comment that is being replied to

    you're welcome ;)

    Parent

    So in other words (none / 0) (#61)
    by sj on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 11:15:08 AM EST
    You've got nothing. Just some sort of animus to satisfy. And no thanks, I don't need your sort of help. You can definitely keep it.

    Parent
    you sound completely unhinged (none / 0) (#62)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 11:39:30 AM EST
    Well, you would know (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 11:53:59 AM EST
    so maybe you're right. But then I'm not the one making wilda$$ connections so that I cam make accusations of straw men. So ... maybe you're not right about that either.

    Parent
    Seems Like You are Doing the Same Thing... (none / 0) (#3)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 03:36:26 PM EST
    ...on the other side, you have acquitted them then implying there its a conspiracy.
    It was all done to abort the riots.

    Your "If the autopsy showed something which would exonerate" is one gigantic If, so let through one out there, what If it showed a boot print to the back of the neck, wouldn't the above quote still hold true.

    I think the autopsy should be public.  The public has the right to know what the coroner believes killed him.

    Parent

    I Disagree (none / 0) (#17)
    by msaroff on Fri Jun 05, 2015 at 01:01:17 AM EST
    I think that she is trying to avoid poisoning the jury pool.

    I think that the defense will move for a change of venue, and she knows that she cannot get a conviction in, for example, Baltimore County (separate from the city of Baltimore), Harford County, or Ann Arundel county, particularly since the juries in those jurisdictions would necessarily be far less black.

    Parent

    antidote (2.75 / 4) (#18)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Jun 05, 2015 at 06:37:15 AM EST
    I think that she is trying to avoid poisoning the jury pool.

    Ohh Please.

    More like she is trying not to inform the jury pool that she has poisoned them and she is refusing to give them the antidote.

    It's only poison to those in the prosecutor's office and those placing their hopes in them.

    It's been 8 weeks and she's still playing hide and seek with the autopsy that by law should have been in the hands of the police over a month ago -- and now she files a gag order to continue to keep it secret.

    What is in that autopsy that she is so afraid of the public knowing about?

    Parent

    No citation for this "law"? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 11:21:32 AM EST
    Guess it was just something you made up.

    Quelle surprise.

    Parent

    ?man (none / 0) (#30)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 11:46:32 AM EST
    It's a longstanding tradition.

    You want to question that too?

    Parent

    YOU, making things up? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    I don't question that at all.  It's the very reason you can't cite this (imaginary) law.

    Parent
    ??man (none / 0) (#32)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 01:40:30 PM EST
    Citing longstanding tradition is good enough for you.

    Parent
    You go from (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 02:18:53 PM EST
    It's been 8 weeks and she's still playing hide and seek with the autopsy that by law should have been in the hands of the police over a month ago
    to citing some, as usual, undefined
    longstanding tradition
     

    Keep digging Chip, sometimes it's fun to hang around and kick some dirt back in.

    Parent

    No, it's not (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 07, 2015 at 10:17:34 PM EST
    When I claim there's a law ... there's a law.

    When you claim there's a law ... it complete BS.

    That's the difference.

    Parent

    investigation (none / 0) (#38)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 08:59:02 AM EST
    If there is no law [regulation, rule, whatever] requiring that Mosby turn over a copy of the autopsy to the police, then why has Mosby filed with the court for an exemption from having to do so?

    If the COD is still under investigation, then why are the investigators being denied a copy of the autopsy being denied to lawful investigators, aka the Baltimore police department?

    If it's a mere gratuity then why has she included her request for an exemption in her motion to the court?

    Mosby's in a Catch 22 and her D Day is June 26th --

    Parent

    The only real question (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 11:56:49 AM EST
    If there's a law that required her to turn over the autopsy report a month ago, then why can't you cite it?

    (Hint - Because, as always, you're just making $hit up.

    Parent

    What law ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 05, 2015 at 01:16:34 PM EST
    ... required her to give the autopsy report to the police "over a month ago"?

    Parent
    None at all. (none / 0) (#23)
    by msaroff on Fri Jun 05, 2015 at 06:31:20 PM EST
    What does the Gray family want? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Aspidistra on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 03:40:09 PM EST
    When it comes to murder cases (as the current charges are for), I tend to go with what the victim's family wants.  In the article it wasn't clear what Gray's family wants - I assume it is in line with the prosecutor's request to suppress the autopsy report until trial.  That sounds fine - give the family some privacy and time to grieve.  The autopsy report will be made public eventually.

    my understanding (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 04:46:58 PM EST
    is that Freddie Gray's right to privacy disappeared with his death -  not saying i agree with the spirit of that principle, if it is one, but this is something i've seen several attorneys say who have commented on the case

    i don't think you're saying that you want the Gray family's wishes to determine any other aspect of the prosecution, are you?

    that said, i have been & remain very critical of how Marilyn Mosby has been conducting herself since May 1, but i don't see why she has to release the autopsy report to the defense right now - the defense will see it in due time

    my sense is that Mosby is waiting for a decision on the gag order & that she will release the autopsy report to the defense after the gag order is in place

    that seems right to me

    Parent

    Seems right to me as well. (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 05:01:21 PM EST
    i was wondering.  Suppose the report confirms what she has been saying.  If she released it she would no doubt be criticized for it.  But if she does what she has done and everyone has a fit and demands it be released....

    Parent
    Yes to the lawyers, No to the general public (none / 0) (#22)
    by Aspidistra on Fri Jun 05, 2015 at 05:32:02 PM EST
    The defense attorneys need the autopsy report to prepare their case; it was my understanding that the autopsy report would definitely be made public during the trial and that the gag order question was only regarding its pre-trial release.

    I'm thinking that the autopsy contains information about Freddie Gray (e.g., traces of pot in his system) that can be sensationalized and used to distract from the larger issues in the case.  It's also likely that some of the information in the report is ambiguous and the medical examiner may have been very cautious about cause and effect in terms of some of Gray's injuries.  We'll find out eventually.

    I don't want this to become a trial by public opinion...but maybe it's too late for that.

    Parent

    When I read the initial post, my question was: (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 05:05:19 PM EST
    Withhold the autopsy from whom? From the press and public? Or also from the accused officers' defense counsel? From the linked story, it is apparent that the answer is "both." That's wrong. The defense is entitled to have the autopsy to prepare for trial. Whether it should be released to the public, now or ever, is something else.

    that's interesting (none / 0) (#10)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 06:02:00 PM EST
    what do you think of the SA's request for a gag order?

    her actions seem to imply that she doesn't trust the defense not to "try the case in the media" if she turns over the autopsy report without a gag order in place

    i would actually like to see the report released to the defense but was forming the impression that the defense will be given the report with enough time to prepare for trial

    thanks, if you want to respond - i always learn from your comments

    Parent

    I have very mixed feelings about gag orders (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 08:44:59 PM EST
    I believe strongly in First Amendment freedom of the press. I also believe in Sixth Amendment fair trials. Balancing the two in high-profile cases can be challenging. Where I come down is that gag orders should not be imposed unless there is a strong showing that it will be very difficult to select an impartial jury in the local venue if the parties' and counsel's participation in the publicity is not controlled. The judge cannot impose any order directly on the press, only on the parties to the case (the state and the defendant, and their respective counsel).

    Parent
    And, the judge can extend the (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 10:19:18 PM EST
    restrictions to those to whom either the prosecution or defense counsel provides copies of the material at issue, correct. Investigators. Expert witnesses. Etc.

    Parent
    And in particular, any police department (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 05, 2015 at 10:09:21 AM EST
    members who are working with the prosecution. Yes, good point; helpful clarification.

    Parent
    thank you, Peter G and Oculus (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 11:35:34 PM EST
    How do you feel about (none / 0) (#20)
    by Palli on Fri Jun 05, 2015 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    Grand Juror in Darren Wilson GJ trial suing to lift the gag order?
    http://tinyurl.com/o4n3zd9

    Parent
    The Baltimore Sun has reported that (none / 0) (#11)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 07:54:58 PM EST
    Mosey was clear that the autopsy would be given to defense attorneys:
    Bates said the protective order would allow only prosecutors and defense attorneys to see the documents, and could require the court to seal all new filings that make reference to information in the documents.

    In that way, he said, it would be more restrictive than a gag order.

    "Nobody would know anything but the state and the defense, so they would totally hide it from the public," Bates said. "If your case is as good as you said it was, why don't you just show the evidence? ... You can't holler and say, 'I'm about accountability for the citizens,' and then run around filing for a protective order."

    [sorry -I'm on my daughter's iPad and can't link]

    I think the important part is that she is not looking to deny the report to the defense.

    Parent

    Glad to know that (none / 0) (#13)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 08:31:09 PM EST
    I had the opposite impression/understanding from the story that J linked, on which her post was based.

    Parent
    gag order denied, "lacks standing" (none / 0) (#50)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jun 08, 2015 at 10:59:23 PM EST
    The judge presiding over the prosecution of six Baltimore Police officers involved in the arrest of Freddie Gray struck the state's motion for a gag order in the case. Judge Charles J. Peters ruled the motion lacked standing in an actual proceeding, as it was filed by Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby's office in Circuit Court on May 14. At that time, the officers' cases were still in District Court. They weren't transferred to Circuit Court until May 21, when the officers were indicted.

    link

    the ruling does not preclude a new motion for a gag order, & the SA's office declines to say whether a new a motion will be filed

    I'm sure Mosby (none / 0) (#54)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 09:01:59 AM EST
    and her legal geniuses will eventually figure out what court to file that motion in.

    The word is that she is next headed for Judge Judy's court.

    Parent

    Anne, I have a question for you. (none / 0) (#74)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 05:24:09 PM EST
    At the tail end of a news report that I missed most of, the byline said this past month of May was the worst in the history of Baltimore in 40 years.  I know you were probably in kindergarten 40 years ago, but do you remember what happened back then, that could have been worse?  Thanks.

    It's not as dire as it sounds, fishcamp; (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 06:36:31 PM EST
    1975 was the first year that the Maryland Unified Crime Reporting Program was adopted - that's why you keep hearing/reading "...since 1975."

    Here's a link to more information.

    [And, sad to say - I guess - in 1975, I was graduating from college, not kindergarten!]

    Parent

    Thanks Anne. (none / 0) (#83)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 10:22:59 PM EST
    That's a very informative website.

    Parent
    wow, what a clusterf^ck (none / 0) (#102)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 03:43:37 PM EST
    if the State's Attorney can now be called as a witness for the defense - can she?

    a bit more research . . . and pondering (none / 0) (#107)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 05:38:49 AM EST
    If we read a bit more on this subject and these subjects, then, it appears, at least as a result of my limited reading so far:

    1. the prosecutors only rarely, if ever, ask that there be a gag order or limitations on discussions of the autopsy results;
    2. that a number of well-publicized cases have taken place without any gag order or requested gag order in them;
    3. that in those cases in which there is a limitation on the discussion of the autopsy, that it is generally the defense which requests the limitation and that the limitation tends to be preventing releasing autopsy photos and the purpose tends to be to avoid inflaming public passions, on the basis that if people see gruesome or horrible photos, that they tend to react to wanting to blame and pin the crime on someone, whoever is most convenient and that judges may regard release of photos inflammatory for that reason;
    4. that in this case it has tended to be conservative commentators and news sources which are upset and/or irritated and/or suspicious of conspiracy and of motives of Mosby;
    5. that Mosby has gone further than usual and also requested that the judge order witnesses to not share their stories with media--a request or practice not made in the cases of Zimmerman or Ferguson or other somewhat similar cases;
    6. that results of a preliminary autopsy report was previously leaked, supposedly, stating Gray died of a spinal cord injury after his arrest;
    7. that possible areas of problem or controversy are whether or not the injury was self-inflicted and/or whether or not Gray had had some spinal surgery recently and being active despite a doctor's instructions shortly after some other spinal procedure;

    unrelated but #8) the defense is claiming it was only recently changed policy (one week old) that persons be in seat-belts while being taken in and that some officers had not read the email or memo carefully . . .
    partly related #9) some are speculating that Gray had swallowed some drug package prior to the arrest and that this package failed and Gray went into convulsions or acted bizarrely under the influence of drugs in his system, causing him to hit himself or his head into a bolt in the vehicle . . .

    I am not a doctor and I do not know if that is a reasonable speculation . . .  If the autopsy includes that idea, then, it seems it would severely damage the case  . . .

    Powerline (none / 0) (#111)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 08:02:50 AM EST
    THINGS GO FROM BAD TO WORSE FOR MARILYN MOSBY

    Marilyn Mosby, the prosecutor in the Freddie Gray case, continues to make news for all the wrong reasons.

    First, her motion for a gag order in the case was dismissed because she filed it in the wrong court. ....

    Mistakes like this aren't unheard of in litigation, but they smack of amateurism.

    Second, it has been revealed that Mosby directed Baltimore police to ramp up narcotics patrols with increased "targeting" at an intersection near where Freddie Gray was arrested....

    However, Mosby's directive seems to undercut what's left of the criminal charges she filed in connection with Gray's arrest, as opposed to his treatment thereafter....

    Mosby's directive will make it difficult for her to argue that the area from which Gray fled is not a high crime area.

    Actually, it was always going to be difficult to make that argument.

    Now, it would be embarrassing....



    Has she made the argument? (none / 0) (#112)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 08:37:39 AM EST
    That the area is not a high crime area?  Her case doesn't depend on this (straw) argument.

    Parent
    Not only that, but Mosby didn't (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:14:40 AM EST
    actually direct any action - she asked that it be looked into because of community concerns, and by referencing Operation Ceasefire was looking for collaborative efforts, not the kind of aggressive policing that gets people killed.

    I am kind of chuckling at Chip's using Powerline to further his agenda, though...

    Parent

    From your post (2.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 10:04:34 AM EST
    of yesterday's article in the Sun:

    In the March 17 email to Maj. Osborne Robinson, Rosenblatt wrote that Mosby's office wanted to build on the success in reducing crime in the West Baltimore neighborhood through the Operation Ceasefire program by "targeting that intersection for enhanced prosecutorial (and hopefully police) attention."

    In that program, prosecutors, police and community groups work together to persuade criminals to reform.

    It's called the carrot and the stick approach which I'm sure you are aware of.

    The police part of that program was to arrest the suspects, put them in a van, and bring them to the jail where prosecutors would then offer them a choice -- prosecution, a criminal record and jail time, or non-prosecution, no record, but community service.

    Did you think that the prosecutors were going to hit the streets themselves? Did you think that they were going to wander the streets with sign-up sheets? Did you think that there was going to be a line outside city hall to sign up for this?

    What did you think the police part of this program was -- to run a community lemonade stand and serve pretzels for the drug dealers???

    You really are clueless --

    Parent

    Clearly, you did not read anything (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 10:46:16 AM EST
    about Operation Ceasefire, with which Mosby asked the efforts be coordinated.

    Here are two of the strategies employed under that program:

    Group Violence Intervention:

    A real working partnership among stakeholders within law enforcement, community members and social services is the strategy's most important element and also its greatest challenge. The explicit aim is to reduce pro-violence peer dynamics within gangs by creating collective accountability, fostering internal dynamics that deter violence, establishing community norms and standards against violence, and giving gang members who want it an "honorable exit" from the street life.

    Drug Market Intervention:

    DMI, which was first piloted in 2004 in High Point, North Carolina, identifies particular drug markets, identifies street-level dealers, arrests violent offenders, creates "banked" cases - or suspends prosecution - for nonviolent dealers, and brings together drug dealers, their families, law enforcement officials, service providers, and community leaders for a call-in meeting that makes clear that selling drugs openly must stop. The strategy also includes a critical process of racial reconciliation to address historical conflict between law enforcement and communities of color.

    Since 2004, dozens of cities around the country have implemented the DMI strategy. In many of these cities, the targeted drug markets have closed, and there have been large reductions in violent and drug-related crime. Cities have attained these outcomes in a way that minimizes the use of law enforcement, gains powerful endorsement from the community, and maximizes the chances that dealers will be rehabilitated. Most important, in many sites the strategy has resulted in a fundamentally new understanding and relationship between law enforcement and the affected community.

    Here's a link to the page that shows the strategies in brief.

    Did you not see the reference right there in the excerpt you posted to prove I'm clueless?

    Rosenblatt wrote that Mosby's office wanted to build on the success in reducing crime in the West Baltimore neighborhood through the Operation Ceasefire program by "targeting that intersection for enhanced prosecutorial (and hopefully police) attention."

    In that program, prosecutors, police and community groups work together to persuade criminals to reform.

    You are some piece of work.  And I mean that in the most negative connotation possible.

    Parent

    Yes or No (3.50 / 2) (#121)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 11:31:24 AM EST
    In that program, prosecutors, police and community groups work together to persuade criminals to reform.

    Was detaining those engaged in criminal activity, arresting them, handcuffing them, putting them in vans, and taking them to the station part of the Ceasefire Program?

    Yes or No?

    Parent

    You still haven't looked at the (4.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 11:52:55 AM EST
    information at the links to the program, have you?

    My take, from reading about the program, is that Operation Ceasefire is about finding better ways to clean up communities and provide ways for people to turn away from crime and drugs.

    It is about collaboration, and minimizing the use of law enforcement.

    DMI, which was first piloted in 2004 in High Point, North Carolina, identifies particular drug markets, identifies street-level dealers, arrests violent offenders, creates "banked" cases - or suspends prosecution - for nonviolent dealers, and brings together drug dealers, their families, law enforcement officials, service providers, and community leaders for a call-in meeting that makes clear that selling drugs openly must stop. The strategy also includes a critical process of racial reconciliation to address historical conflict between law enforcement and communities of color.

    Since 2004, dozens of cities around the country have implemented the DMI strategy. In many of these cities, the targeted drug markets have closed, and there have been large reductions in violent and drug-related crime. Cities have attained these outcomes in a way that minimizes the use of law enforcement, gains powerful endorsement from the community, and maximizes the chances that dealers will be rehabilitated. Most important, in many sites the strategy has resulted in a fundamentally new understanding and relationship between law enforcement and the affected community.

    At the time of Freddie Gray's arrest, he was not being violent.  It has not been alleged that he was engaged in any criminal activity at the time.

    Having the power to detain, arrest, handcuff and transport does not end the obligation to preserve and protect the life of those being detained and transported.

    The list of organizations and service providers working with Operation Ceasefire should make it obvious that the program is not about mass detentions and arrests:

    Baltimore's Operation Ceasefire support and outreach network includes a select group of partners:

        Baltimore Recovery
        Human Service Community Action Center
        The ReC Reentry Services
        Canter For Grace-Full Living
        Morgan State School of Social Work
        Jericho Reentry
        Baltimore Health Systems
        Safe Streets West & East
        Mayor's Office on Constituent Services
        Strength to Love II
        No Turning Back, Inc.
        Mothers of Murdered Sons and Daughters
        A Step Forward, Inc.
        Baltimore City Health Department
        Mayor's Reentry Advisors Council
        First Mount Calvary Church
        Group Ministries
        Baltimore PD's Community Partnership Division
        Center for Urban Families
        Baltimore/MD Department of Social Service
        New Song Church
        Episcopal Community Services
        University of Maryland Violence Prevention
        Baltimore Safe and Sound

    Here's some news on a drug bust that resulted from an Operation Ceasefire initiative:

    Guess what?  No one died.

    Parent

    community program (1.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 12:00:57 PM EST
    So which of those community groups were Freddie Gray and Donta Allen part of?

    And was the drug deal they were engaged in that morning part of that community program?

    Parent

    What drug deal? (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 12:06:12 PM EST
    I see you're back to making sh!t up again.

    Parent
    That's part of the wingnut mythology (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:21:39 PM EST
    the "drug deal" that was only became a thing, not in any official reports I think, after the sh!t hit the fan and the needed an excuse to "arrest" him.

    Parent
    Have you forgotten (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 08:56:16 PM EST
    The Freddie Gray Arrest Record:

    March 20, 2015: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance

    March 13, 2015: Malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault

    January 20, 2015: Fourth-degree burglary, trespassing

    January 14, 2015: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute

    December 31, 2014: Possession of narcotics with intent to distribute

    December 14, 2014: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance

    Dot Dot Dot -- Read it and weep.

    He was either a dealer or user or both and certainly no boy scout.

    Parent

    The arrest was probably drug related (1.00 / 2) (#136)
    by McBain on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:02:40 PM EST
    Either he was involved in a deal or the police suspected he was.  

    Parent
    "Probably" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:53:20 PM EST
    probably - adj. meaning - a completely specious, baseless accusation that I believe despite a complete lack of evidence because I want to believe it.

    Parent
    Yep (1.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 11:24:00 PM EST
    They didn't chase him down for the illegal knife but for the drug deal they just saw go down. I defer to the professionals on this matter -- they know a drug buy when they see it.

    Otherwise they would not have chased him 3 blocks and he would not have run that far either to evade them. They knew he had illegal drugs and Freddie knew they knew.

    It may have been a heroin packet. With the police on his trail he had to swallow the packet and that is what caused his medical problems -- difficulty breathing, cardiac arrest, convulsions, head-banging,....

    If that turns out to be the case, it won't go over well with the Freddie Gray Fan Club.

    No wonder they want to keep that autopsy and those tox reports hidden.

    Parent

    Interesting that the arrest report (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 06:30:32 AM EST
    says nothing about any of the officers seeing anything "going down," and in the two months since the incident, not a word about it, not even from the defense lawyers.

    Are you seriously suggesting that, with so much on the line, these officers would not have used this as an affirmative defense to their actions that day?

    First, you tried to tell us he ditched the drugs in a building he ran into.  Now you're telling us he swallowed the evidence. All of this without any indication, from any of the cops on the scene in their report or later, that there were any drugs, or even mentioning a drug deal as the reason he ran and they went after him.  I wonder what the next wild-a$$ed theory will be?

    How many drug overdoses do you think these cops have seen in their years on the force?  A lot?  Think they would be unaware of the symptoms?  And if they believed he was suffering from an overdose, that makes their refusal to get him any medical attention even more indefensible.

    Nope, sorry - this isn't, as McBain described, an "interesting theory," except to people who can't or won't think it through.

    Parent

    They heard this on FOX (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 07:26:36 AM EST
    so of course it's true.  Just like McBain said about McKinney being unrelated to race.  Because Megan Kelly interviewed a nice white man wh said he didn't see or hear anything racist at all.  So of course, why are we suggesting it has a racial dimension,

    I mean, just because the fat redneck Kelly was interviewing was in fact one of the people who flung the first racial slurs.  And by the way is a convinced felon for torturing animals as well as having an arrest record for aggravated assault.

    So of course.  Nothing racial in McKinney and Freddie most certainly was doing a drug deal.  In spite of the FACT that there's absolutely not a shrewd of evidence to support this.   With cops on trial not a shrewd of evidence of this mythical drug deal.  But we KNOW there was because an anonymous "cop" told Megan Kelly this.

    I woul call them idiots but we are not supposed to call people names.  And it would be unfair to idiots.

    Parent

    Not a shread Or a shrewd of evidence (none / 0) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 07:29:37 AM EST
    no idea why iPad changes shread to shrewd but whatever

    Parent
    Because it's "shred" (none / 0) (#147)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 07:50:04 AM EST
    not "shread," and that's why it autocorrected to "shrewd."

    Parent
    Stupid iPad (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 07:52:04 AM EST
    it should know what I mean.

    Parent
    Not a shred of evidence (none / 0) (#149)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 09:01:21 AM EST
    Not a shred of evidence

    except for Donta Allen's admissions in the Jayne Miller WBAL interview.

    I guess you missed it --

    Parent

    I can't believe I'm responding to you (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 09:43:25 AM EST
    but I guess this is important.   I watched that twice.  I heard no such thing.  What I did hear is him saying he had not seen Freddie Gray since the day before they put him in the van.

    So setting aside that you are now relying, to prop up your bullsh!t, a person you have done nothing but try to discredit, he said no such thing.  

    Watch that again if you would please and tell me the exact minute mark where he provides your shread of evidence.   Or admission.  Or whatever you call it. Cause I didn't hear it.

    Parent

    I heard no such thing. (1.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 11:14:04 AM EST
    What I did hear is him saying he had not seen Freddie Gray since the day before they put him in the van.

    That's because the police were fingering him for  being the other party to that drug deal that morning.

    That's why they picked Donta up and put him in the same van -- because they saw the deal go down and Freddie was acting like a guy who just swallowed his drug buy.

    That's why Donta so vehemently insisted that he hadn't see him that morning.

    That's why later in the interview [~3:00] he says that some woman came to him in jail and told him that Freddie swallowed something -- to which he apoplectically objects.

    Why would Freddie swallowing something be any concern to Donta and why would Donta so vehemently deny it?

    The police wanted Donta to come clean and tell them what it was that Freddie swallowed because he sold it to him. But Donta wouldn't tell them.

    If that is the case then Donta had more to do with Freddie's death than anyone other than Freddie himself.

    Parent

    Thats why (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 11:23:53 AM EST
    you are talking out your a$$ as usual.

    I'm sorry I even asked and gave you an excuse to waste more bandwidth.

    That video proves exactly nothing. You are full of sh!t.  
    Please anyone who cares.  Watch it.

    Parent

    Wow - that's some story you're (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 11:38:00 AM EST
    concocting...who is your police source?

    There is NO ONE who is pushing that scenario, except you, and the rest of the Fox freaks. And it simply defies logic and common sense that if this was all about a drug deal, that it wouldn't have been outlined in the police report.  

    Regardless, once taken into custody, the police had an obligation to safeguard Gray's health; they were obligated to render or obtain medical assistance - which they did not do.

    You can't get around that, no matter how many ridiculous scenarios you concoct.

    Parent

    So I take it that (none / 0) (#154)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 12:38:20 PM EST
    you don't believe professional police van rider Donta Allen in that interview where he states that there is no way to get injured in the back of the van, especially since the ride back to the station was "smoothe" and "straight".

    And he wasn't wearing his seatbelt either.

    Parent

    Bless your heart (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 12:48:00 PM EST
    What I believe is that the (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 03:16:10 PM EST
    stop where Allen was picked up was the last stop before going to the station - not to Central Booking as they were originally supposed to be going.

    From the arrest point to Penn North: no witnesses to the kind of ride or anything else that may have transpired.

    From Penn North to Western District: a conscious Donta Allen, potential witness to the remainder of the ride.  No way police would want the witness to report anything other than "smooth ride, no problems."

    For someone with as active an imagination as you have, it's surprising these basic concepts are beyond your reach.

    Well, maybe not.

    Parent

    That's not a shred of evidence (3.50 / 2) (#157)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 03:50:41 PM EST
    That's an overactive imagination coupled with a $hitload of tinfoil.

    Parent
    Interesting theory (none / 0) (#140)
    by McBain on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 12:45:13 AM EST
    I believe one of the disguised cops suggested that on Hannity a while ago.

    Parent
    Just wondering (2.00 / 1) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 07:42:08 AM EST
    has it ever occurred to you to wonder why he was "disguised"

    Parent
    And, as usual ... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 07:39:35 AM EST
    ... not a shred of evidence to support this latest, tinfoil claim.

    Par for the course ...

    Parent

    More like, "read it and laugh" (none / 0) (#138)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:55:29 PM EST
    You claimed he was involved in a drug deal that morning.

    Just one more LIE to add to your ever-growing list of lies.

    Parent

    BS (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 05:14:38 PM EST
    What evidence do you have that they were engaged in s drug deal?  For someone who demands links for claims that others aren't even making, you suttee do love to just make $hit up.

    Parent
    Did you see this (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 11:10:49 AM EST
    I didn't see the whole thing, but (3.50 / 2) (#122)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 11:34:53 AM EST
    my feeling is that I don't believe that cops who are policing in an entirely appropriate manner are concerned at all that they will be arrested for doing their jobs.

    In fact, if I were the police commissioner, I'd be looking to show the door to cops who have a "warrior" approach to policing, who think they have the right to "punish" an entire city for having the nerve to not want their loved ones to end up dead as a result of police interaction.

    I think major changes will be coming to the BPD, and cops who can't deal with the reforms will be moving along.  And the good cops will be happy to see them go.

    Parent

    different questions (none / 0) (#129)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 02:01:42 PM EST
    So, I have been reading more about the case . . .

    Supposedly the ME's office has ruled or found or considered Gray's death a "homicide."  Does that mean that the autopsy we have not been able to see says that they regard the death as being caused by bad acts of the police?  Other choices perhaps could have been natural causes or accident?

    *

    Supposedly Ceasar Goodson was the driver and he is being charged with the most serious of the offenses . . .  but it is being reported that he repeatedly asked other officers to see that Gray was put in a position in a seat belt or restraint and that they did not do so.

    If it turns out to be true that Goodson asked the others to put Gray in seat belts, then, won't that destroy most of the charges against him?

    The seatbelt herring (none / 0) (#186)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 09:45:12 AM EST
    The only place to date where the much anticipated Baltimore Sun Version of the Freddie Gray Autopsy can be found without having to buy a subscription from the leaky Baltimore Sun is here.

    And this is what it says:

    The safest place for FG to be was on the floor of the police van where the officers had placed him at the 2nd stop.

    But FG somehow was able to get up from the floor to his feet after that 2nd stop, lose his balance,  and suffer his fatal "high energy injury" before the 4th stop.

    At the 4th stop an officer assisted him from the floor where he had fallen to the bench where the seatbelts were.

    So the first opportunity the officers had to buckle or fail to buckle his seatbelt around him was at the 4th stop -- but the "high energy injury" had already occurred by then.

    So the buckling or not buckling of his seatbelt was irrelevant to his "high energy injury". The fatal 'high energy injury" did not occur while he was sitting unbuckled on the bench but somewhere before the floor and his feet while he was standing before he ever got to the bench.

    Had he stayed where they put him initially, on the floor, and not stood up, then no fatal "high energy injury" would have happened to him.

    No wonder Mosby's office wanted to keep this autopsy hidden. It's a "high energy injury" to her case and it is likely to be fatal to it and several careers.

    More bad news (none / 0) (#187)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 08:40:46 AM EST
    for Mosby & Company:

    In the massive prosecution evidence dump is the video taped recording of Donta Allen's police interview that Donta tried to deny.

    In this taped interview is Donta Allen describing fellow traveller Freddie Gray in the other compartment as a "madman banging against the walls trying to hurt himself" during that smooth straight ride back to the station.

    Well -- so much for the ME's autopsy and the prosecution's case -- again.

    Very interesting (none / 0) (#189)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 01, 2015 at 12:43:46 PM EST
    So if he really days that in his recorded interview, you have a link, right?  Or is it just that link to Faux News with someone CLAIMING that's in the video?

    Parent
    Finally (none / 0) (#188)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Jul 01, 2015 at 06:40:43 AM EST
    the much anticipated evidence dump including this:

    Another piece of evidence notes an agreement with Officer Zachary Novak, who was the only officer present during the incident who was not charged with a crime.

    There is no explanation of what the agreement says.

    Interesting --

    per 101 (none / 0) (#190)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Jul 02, 2015 at 09:51:51 AM EST
    "Alright, per 101, have those units stay out of the downtown area for now, we'll advise, 10-4" @ 2:00

    What or who was "101"? Mayor Rawlings? Commissioner Batts? Can you answer that?

    BTW -- a similar stand down order was given to the police units in Ferguson just before it was looted and burned.