Wasn't there a mention of the GJ getting copies of the x-rays from Officer Wilson's visit to the hospital? Why would there be any significance in an x-ray that shows no damage when a report stating no fractures would be sufficient? Any one have any thoughts about this?
First, the term "x-ray" is colloquial. It's pretty much a given that all of the imaging done was digital. OW most definitely would have had a CT. A plain film view (AP/ lat) would be insufficient alone, to document the
absence of injury, or to quantify the
presence of the injury.
The images, along with the interpretation ("report") by the radiologist, will be presented to the GJ, along with photos taken in ED of the injuries, and the treating ED physician. All notes from that ED encounter will be available, and I'd bet my last dollar hat the docs who saw OW in ED,
and the radiologist (if the GJ wants to hear from him/ her) will be able to be made available by subpoena to the GJ to testify. There is no way an image alone would be submitted to a GJ, without the physicians to interpret what is there, or not there, for the lay people on the GJ. The GJ will get EVERYTHING that is available from OW's ED visit,
AND any follow up care he received. This was an on-the-job injury of a LEO involved in a fatal shooting of a suspect who had assaulted him-- rest assured that the medical end of things will be
extremely well documented. There is a ton of medical info-- we don't have it, but it exists, and the GJ will get it.
EVEN if there is no "orbital blow out fracture."
My thoughts on this: I wonder if the x-rays were inconclusive if there was a fracture or not. And therefore, a CT scan was ordered which possibly showed a fracture? JMO.
The prosecutor is pressing for a charge, therefore he wants to show the x-rays to the GJ. IMO.
I would be curious to find out what the CT scan showed.
BBM. That kind of doesn't make sense, if OW is actually injured. The prosecutor is not on OW's "side" in this GJ situation-- the prosecutor is deliberating whether OW should have criminal charges pressed. Remember-- it's not MB that is being considered for prosecution, it's OW.
The diagnostic images are what they are-- they show what they show-- they are very objective evidence. The CT will
not be inconclusive, IMO.
The prosecutor cannot withhold any diagnostic images to bolster his case, IMO, because it's been acknowledged by a whole lot of people, including the police chief, and attorneys for the Brown relatives, that there
was an assault of the officer/ "serious encounter" at/ in the vehicle, that produced facial injuries, and OW was taken by his supervisor to the ED.
But again-- the absence of an orbital fracture means nothing, really. There still could be a globe injury to the eyeball itself, or the conjunctiva, soft tissue injury to the face/ eye, etc. Obviously, OW was ambulatory, and was never (AFAIK) admitted to an ICU or any inpatient unit. The absence of hospital admission also does not mean the injury was not legally serious, even if OW has a full recovery. It's the ASSAULT that is important-- that set off the chain of events that lead to MB's death, IMO. There's no requirement that someone has to have facial fractures, or be knocked unconscious, or suffer a concussion, for the injury to be "severe enough". (Although very serious head injuries requiring surgery or ICU care, or permanently altered function, are demonstrably easier to categorize as "severe".)
I think the pictures (and there will be
more pictures than the ones taken in ED; there will be pics taken of his injuries on subsequent days, IMO) and the records, and the images, and the testimony of the medical personnel, is going to be very persuasive that OW was assaulted. IMO. It's not rocket science. And IMO, it will be very easy to distinguish between a shoved car door hitting OW in the face (the "ricochet theory" from the Brown attorneys), versus a blow from a hand/ fist.
fftobed:
I promise to go to bed repeating the lessons of patience and wisdom.
