More Ferguson newsleaks

[Cow Poke]

I'm actually seeing seer's point here... there was "white flight" where I lived in Tyler, but I never thought of it as "those blacks and mexicans" --- I just thought of it as "I don't want to live in one of the high crime areas of the city".

In fact, it wasn't the color of the skin of the people I looked at, it was the barbed white strands along the tops of fences, the rundown houses, the trash in the front yards, homes with broken windows, graffiti... the burglar bars on doors and windows --- all the signs that "this is a high crime area".

[JimL]

Report: Autopsy analysis shows Michael Brown may have gone for Darren Wilson’s gun

Official autopsy shows Michael Brown had close-range wound to his hand, marijuana in system

PDF: Autopsy report for Michael Brown

Interesting info for those interested in trying this in the press.

Gee, I wonder who is responsible for these leaks? Wouldn't be the attorney for the defense now would it?

[Cow Poke]

Gee, I wonder who is responsible for these leaks? Wouldn't be the attorney for the defense now would it?

Or ANY of the grand jurors themselves. As always, Jimmy the bigot demonstrates his "assumption of guilt" any time it's "the other guy".

[Juvenal]

Gee, I wonder who is responsible for these leaks? Wouldn't be the attorney for the defense now would it?

Given the history of the case, the Ferguson police department seems more likely. They leaked the earlier video against the advice of both state and federal justice officials, with predictably tragic results. The recent autopsy leaks were made to a local newspaper, and another local paper has identified them as offering to leak related information as well.

Justice Department condemns Ferguson leaks as effort to sway opinion

Chris King, managing editor of the St. Louis American, a newspaper for black audiences, said law enforcement officials had offered him the leaks, saying “they had been briefed on the evidence and it didn't look good for Michael Brown supporters,” but he declined and decried “third-party hearsay” in an editorial for the paper.

Also in the linked article ...

St. Louis County prosecutor’s office spokesman Ed Magee said his office probably wouldn’t investigate the leaks because prosecutors could not force journalists to divulge their sources and because the information could be coming from federal officials in Washington.

“There’s really nothing to investigate,” Magee said Wednesday. “We don’t have control over anybody leaking anything. All we can control is people in our office and the grand jury, and it’s not coming from us or the grand jury.”

And ...

A Justice Department spokeswoman responded in a statement to the Los Angeles Times: “The department considers the selective release of information in this investigation to be irresponsible and highly troubling. Since the release of the convenience-store footage, there seems to be an inappropriate effort to influence public opinion about this case.”

I don't know if leaking this information constitutes a crime, but there are law enforcement people following this thread who may weigh in. Charges seem unlikely in any case. I sympathize with Officer Wilson's position, but these repeated releases by his colleagues seem tone deaf at best, and quite likely ill-considered. It seems to me the community reaction will just make their jobs that much more difficult.

As ever, Jesse

[Cow Poke]

Given the history of the case, the Ferguson police department seems more likely. They leaked the earlier video against the advice of both state and federal justice officials, with predictably tragic results. The recent autopsy leaks were made to a local newspaper, and another local paper has identified them as offering to leak related information as well.

Justice Department condemns Ferguson leaks as effort to sway opinion

Chris King, managing editor of the St. Louis American, a newspaper for black audiences, said law enforcement officials had offered him the leaks, saying “they had been briefed on the evidence and it didn't look good for Michael Brown supporters,” but he declined and decried “third-party hearsay” in an editorial for the paper.

Also in the linked article ...

St. Louis County prosecutor’s office spokesman Ed Magee said his office probably wouldn’t investigate the leaks because prosecutors could not force journalists to divulge their sources and because the information could be coming from federal officials in Washington.

“There’s really nothing to investigate,” Magee said Wednesday. “We don’t have control over anybody leaking anything. All we can control is people in our office and the grand jury, and it’s not coming from us or the grand jury.”

And ...

A Justice Department spokeswoman responded in a statement to the Los Angeles Times: “The department considers the selective release of information in this investigation to be irresponsible and highly troubling. Since the release of the convenience-store footage, there seems to be an inappropriate effort to influence public opinion about this case.”

I don't know if leaking this information constitutes a crime, but there are law enforcement people following this thread who may weigh in. Charges seem unlikely in any case. I sympathize with Officer Wilson's position, but these repeated releases by his colleagues seem tone deaf at best, and quite likely ill-considered. It seems to me the community reaction will just make their jobs that much more difficult.

As ever, Jesse

I'm still inclined to think it's a juror... it wouldn't be the first time a juror had designs on writing a book from their unique perspective. The police department wouldn't usually have a legitimate reason to receive the latest information from the coroner, especially since it's an active case being considered by a grand jury. But I don't know how similar Missouri law or jurisprudence is to Texas.

Being a grand jury, the jurors are not sequestered, nor are their identities secret .... it wouldn't be difficult for a journalist to cultivate a relationship with any one of them.

[Juvenal]

I'm still inclined to think it's a juror... it wouldn't be the first time a juror had designs on writing a book from their unique perspective. The police department wouldn't usually have a legitimate reason to receive the latest information from the coroner, especially since it's an active case being considered by a grand jury. But I don't know how similar Missouri law or jurisprudence is to Texas.

Being a grand jury, the jurors are not sequestered, nor are their identities secret .... it wouldn't be difficult for a journalist to cultivate a relationship with any one of them.

I'm inclined to stick with the more easily defended version of who's doing the leaking here.

You've got a juror releasing official autopsy and toxicology reports to a relatively unknown local journalist to help them sell a book. A juror interested in cultivating relationships passing up reporters for national papers like the NYTimes and WaPo, or even broadcast journalists, in favor of Christine Byers from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. You've got the first autopsy report qualifying as "latest information." You've got the Ferguson PD, which already has a history of illegitimate leaks now constrained by a lack of legitimate reason to access those reports.

I've got the Ferguson PD doing what they've been doing since this case made the news.

And this ...

Attorney General Holder ‘exasperated’ by Ferguson grand jury leaks, source says

But former St. Louis County police chief Tim Fitch has said in interviews that there can be benefits to leaks. “It’s not a surprise to people” when a decision is announced, he said.

I'm inclined to think their former police chief has a reasonably good read on what passes for thinking inside his former department. As I understand it, all of this information would become public if the grand jury failed to indict. And as it seems to me, if anything at all comes out later showing Wilson as anything other than a model officer, the bias in these leaks will provoke a reaction that will come as a surprise to no one except the odd former police chief.

As ever, Jesse

[Cow Poke]

I'm inclined to stick with the more easily defended version of who's doing the leaking here.

You've got a juror releasing official autopsy and toxicology reports to a relatively unknown local journalist to help them sell a book.

No, I simply said I was inclined to believe it was a juror, and offered some possible motivations or factors.

Upon further reading last night, I pretty much abandon that theory.

[Teallaura]

Since it's a 'trial by news media' I don't see where it matters who did the leaking. In the real trial (or consideration, if no trial occurs), all that will matter is what the results actually say.

[Cow Poke]

Since it's a 'trial by news media' I don't see where it matters who did the leaking. In the real trial (or consideration, if no trial occurs), all that will matter is what the results actually say.

And I think the PURPOSE of the leaks is intended to ATTEMPT to soften the blow when it is revealed (if in fact it is) that the officer will not be charged.

[Teallaura]

And I think the PURPOSE of the leaks is intended to ATTEMPT to soften the blow when it is revealed (if in fact it is) that the officer will not be charged.

That would be unfortunate since it won't work.

[Juvenal]

Upon further reading last night, I pretty much abandon that theory.

Hey, it's still a better direction for the thread than white flight.

[myth]

Given the history of the case, the Ferguson police department seems more likely. They leaked the earlier video against the advice of both state and federal justice officials, with predictably tragic results. The recent autopsy leaks were made to a local newspaper, and another local paper has identified them as offering to leak related information as well.

Justice Department condemns Ferguson leaks as effort to sway opinion

Chris King, managing editor of the St. Louis American, a newspaper for black audiences, said law enforcement officials had offered him the leaks, saying “they had been briefed on the evidence and it didn't look good for Michael Brown supporters,” but he declined and decried “third-party hearsay” in an editorial for the paper.

Also in the linked article ...

St. Louis County prosecutor’s office spokesman Ed Magee said his office probably wouldn’t investigate the leaks because prosecutors could not force journalists to divulge their sources and because the information could be coming from federal officials in Washington.

“There’s really nothing to investigate,” Magee said Wednesday. “We don’t have control over anybody leaking anything. All we can control is people in our office and the grand jury, and it’s not coming from us or the grand jury.”

And ...

A Justice Department spokeswoman responded in a statement to the Los Angeles Times: “The department considers the selective release of information in this investigation to be irresponsible and highly troubling. Since the release of the convenience-store footage, there seems to be an inappropriate effort to influence public opinion about this case.”

I don't know if leaking this information constitutes a crime, but there are law enforcement people following this thread who may weigh in. Charges seem unlikely in any case. I sympathize with Officer Wilson's position, but these repeated releases by his colleagues seem tone deaf at best, and quite likely ill-considered. It seems to me the community reaction will just make their jobs that much more difficult.

As ever, Jesse

I don't know that tone-deaf is how I would describe the release of the convenience store video. I think they made a calculated decision that backfired. I don't know how the situation would have played out if they kept a lid on the video...but I think they were trying to change the narrative of "racist white cop executes innocent black teenager in the street". They probably felt that if they played things closer to the vest, then it would be a PR nightmare because the community would form opinions without having any idea what the other side of the story was. In this case, the community (and others) formed very negative opinions despite knowing the other side of the story, so I'm not sure there was a right decision. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Cow Poke]

Hey, it's still a better direction for the thread than white flight.

Well, there's that.

[Cow Poke]

I don't know that tone-deaf is how I would describe the release of the convenience store video. I think they made a calculated decision that backfired. I don't know how the situation would have played out if they kept a lid on the video...but I think they were trying to change the narrative of "racist white cop executes innocent black teenager in the street". They probably felt that if they played things closer to the vest, then it would be a PR nightmare because the community would form opinions without having any idea what the other side of the story was. In this case, the community (and others) formed very negative opinions despite knowing the other side of the story, so I'm not sure there was a right decision. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I think it may have slowed down SOME of the journalists who had slamdunked this as a bad cop shoots innocent black kid.

[Juvenal]

I don't know that tone-deaf is how I would describe the release of the convenience store video.

I think that if they'd spoken to any of the community leaders first, they'd have made a different decision. I'm comfortable calling that tone deaf.

I think they made a calculated decision that backfired.

Everyone from the feds on down told them it would be .. well, stupid. They were warned. Every image coming out of Ferguson showed a local police force "at war" with the community. This was bunker mentality, not calculation, in my estimation.

I don't know how the situation would have played out if they kept a lid on the video...but I think they were trying to change the narrative of "racist white cop executes innocent black teenager in the street". They probably felt that if they played things closer to the vest, then it would be a PR nightmare because the community would form opinions without having any idea what the other side of the story was. In this case, the community (and others) formed very negative opinions despite knowing the other side of the story, so I'm not sure there was a right decision. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I appreciate your take on this. My take is that the narrative was a PR nightmare of their own making. Again and again, they've chosen confrontation, not just with the local community, but with anyone outside the department, with the minor exception of city beat reporters they felt were already on their side. That's why this latest leak came from a local city beat reporter, in my opinion.

I know that dynamic from the reporter's side, even at a distance of 20 years or so. If you want a source to dish a bit more than they should, you give them a bit more sympathy than appropriate for maintaining an objective position. But that's a tyro mistake, on both sides. The reporter ends up with noticeably biased information and the source ends up with a mouthpiece that lacks credibility because of it.

Not that you can't sell newspapers that way. Nosing around Chris King's St. Louis American, a recent editorial is quite blatant in its biases:

Like the protest movement associated with the municipality, Ferguson, that employed the police officer who killed Michael Brown Jr., we believe there was sufficient evidence to charge Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson with the murder of this young man.

Before continuing with a more thoughtful analysis ...

Officer Wilson should have told his side of that story immediately in a detailed police report that should have been made public when the ACLU and other groups requested it through open-records laws. Wilson’s version of the shooting, as documented in the police report he was bound by duty to produce, and all autopsies of the deceased should have been open to public view for two months now, not shrouded in mystery. Or, conversely, they should have been sealed from public scrutiny by a judge, but made available to both sides in an adversarial trial process, where evidence should have been carefully vetted and challenged by both sides in open court, and all witnesses cross-examined by opposing counsel, in open court.

I don't agree these leaks were about showing the "other" side of the story. They've been about leaking "their" side of the story. I don't agree this has come from calculation. They're laagered up. No one thinks well in a defensive position.

As ever, Jesse