off topicThe man commissioned by the family of Michael Brown to perform a second autopsy on the body is having his credentials called into question, and many wondering if he does indeed qualify as an 'expert' in his field.Shawn Parcells, of Overland Park, Kansas, assisted Dr. Michael Baden in the autopsy of Brown, and briefly became a national figure, appearing on various news programs and being quoted in papers around the country after he revealed his findings.This even though the man is not a doctor, can not conduct an autopsy alone, and is unable to prove his claim that he is a college professor.The chief medical examiner of St. Louis County, Dr Mary Case, called what Parcells does 'abysmal' back in August, after learning he had been hired to assist on Brown's autopsy.Case, who conducted the first autopsy of Brown, told The Daily Caller, 'He is doing forensic autopsies which may send someone to prison, and he is not a physician, much less a forensic pathologist.'She then added that she was 'shocked by this man and how bold he is to do what he does.'Parcells claims he became interested in death as a child when his grandfather passed away, and began performing autopsies while he was still in high school.He received a bachelor's degree in life sciences from Kansas State in 2003, and he told CNN he was immediately accepted to medical school in the Caribbean, but his wife got pregnant and he wanted her to receive her care in the United States, so he did not attend.He still has yet to attend medical school.He does claim to have master's degree in anatomy and physiology, with clinical correlation, but was unable to verify that with an actual diploma.He also claims to be an adjunct professor at Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas, something that officials at Washburn have denied.'[Parcells] is not now and has never been a member of the Washburn University faculty," according to a university spokeswoman.Then, there are the alleged problems that have come up during his actual autopsies. In 2012, Parcells Regional Forensic Services was hired by Andrew County, Missouri, to conduct an autopsy on Robert Forrester, a man they believe may have died as the result of a brain bleed after he had told officers two days earlier that his grandson had 'knocked me the f*** out.'Two deputy sheriffs in Andrew County say that Parcells presented himself as a pathologist, this even though he is not and must have a medical doctor present in order for the findings in his autopsy to be presented in a court of law.There was no medical doctor present during the autopsy.Making the situation even more odd, the pathologist listed on the autopsy form, Edward R. Friedlander, M.D., refused to comment on the case, and when Parcells was pressed, he claimed that the autopsy was actually performed by Dr. George Vandermark.Dr. Vandermark said he had nothing to do with Forrester's autopsy.'I see him as a fraud,' said one of the deputies.The sheriffs had been hoping to charge Forrester's grandson with manslaughter, but with no legal autopsy having been performed and no way to present the findings of a medical expert, it has now been two years since the death and they cannot move forward to prosecute.
Then, there is the case of one funeral home, Northern Star Mortuary, Inc, who hired Parcells to perform an autopsy.After waiting over a week for Parcells to come examine an unidentified body, so long that maggots had started to appear, he finally came to collect the body and perform an autopsy.But Lenox Jones, the Pehlps County Deputy Coroner, says it has been over a year since the sutopsy, and he has no idea where the body is and has not heard from Parcells.Parcells grew irritated when presented with Jones' claim, and said the body in is his morgue in Topeka and could be collected at any timeIn another odd incident, Judy Walker says she paid Parcells to examine her husband's brain after his death in 2011, and Parcells told her he would send the brain to Harvard to be examined.Three years later she received a report from a doctor in New York.She retained a lawyer, Michael Hodges, and at a deposition Parcells handed over a brain in a bucket saying it was that of Walker's husband.She did not believe him, and Parcells claims the brain is at his Topeka morgue if she ever wants to come pick it up.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2858470/Forensics-expert-Michael-Brown-case-called-fraud-college-claims-professor-denies-worked-coroner-claims-stole-body.html
Off topic - now at 26http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/03/two-new-bill-cosby-accusers-come-forward-we-challenge-mr-cosby-to-end-this-nightmare.html
Peter, not a SA case, but a crime video. A hotel desk clerk foils an armed robbery. Should he have resisted? My guess is the hotel will fire him for confronting the robber. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/hotel-clerk-used-luggage-trolley-against-escaping-thief-video-shows-1.2859334
OTWhat could it indicate if a person answers a question with, "I don't know" yet continues with a specific answer to the question?I'm happy to hear from anyone on this question. Thanks!
I watched the video. By saying "if", the man leaves open the possibility of being a phony. BUT that in itself would just lead me to ask him more questions, as it is not a reliable denial.
I wonder if he showed an ID to the store? 10 to 20% discount at most stores and restaraunts for veterans. A harried clerk on Black Friday might just accept the uniform as proof.
Hi Kellie,I would say that they probably do know the answer, but they want to distance themselves from it for whatever reason.
Man Suspected of Falsely Posing as a Decorated Veteran in MallA Pennsylvania man might face federal charges of impersonation after being seen in a video dressed as a decorated veteran when a real veteran challenged him in a mall.http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-suspected-falsely-posing-decorated-veteran-mall/story?id=27330377
OTI found some interesting parts of the grand jury testimony….. Will be in a few parts.One thing that stands out…. Dorian stated that as both him and mike were STANDING next to the car. Now aside from the fact he said both were cussing and yelling and BOTH looked very angry which says alot…. He said the cop reached out and grabbed Mikes shirt collar. And was able to hold him and Mike could not pull away.So first major discrepancy. Mike is 6’4. For the cop to reach his collar while sitting inside the car, Mike had to be leaning in or down. Standing up would be physically impossible. And a 300 pound man with the advantage due to leverage (standing and able to use both arms to push against the car) could not get away from a man sitting with one arm and no leverage. I call BS on this whole thing.And I cannot see a reason for the cop to try to pull Mike into the car. To me that puts Mike in power over him due to his size. That is why I really think the cops version that Mike was attacking him at this point is right. Dorians version does not make sense.So then here are the parts I am hoping Peter or one of you that’s good with SA will analyze.This is on page 104. They are asking about where Mikes/officers hands are right before the shooting and he had just stated as soon as he saw the gun his “eyes locked on the officer” Dorian: The left arm is not on the car anymore, the officer still has the right arm, but hes not inside the car. And when I look up and see the officer, the officer has his gun point, his left arm grabbed, he has his gun pointed aimed at big Mike. In my mind it was probably aimed at both of us, but I assumed he wasn’t directly just trying to go for big Mike. He had his gun pointed towards us. I’m still standing in the doorway and at the time he said I’ll shoot. He was going to say it again, I’ll shoot and almost, he didn’t get to finish his sentence, the gun went off.Question: At the time the gun went off, where were the hands of big Mike?Dorian: The left arm was down at his side. He was standing straight up, I was standing right on the side of him. The right arm was still up in the air while the officer, but still pulling, but it is not like he got any, pulling off the car, he is still pulling the officer. At this time, like I said, I see more of the officer’s arm outside the car than big Mikes arm inside the car, so he has a better position to pull away from, the officer was sitting down.Question: Just so I understand with the officer’s left hand, he’s pulling big Mikes right arm into the car and Mikes pulling away and the officer has his gun in his right hand?Dorian: CorrectQuestion: And he says, I’ll shoot?
Dorian: CorrectQuestion: While all this pulling is going on?Dorian: Correct, yes ma’am.Question: okay . Go ahead, well, there is a question. Real quickly. When the gun when off, as soon as he said I’ll shoot, do you know if the gun was inside the car or outside of the car.Dorian: The gun definitely was inside the car when he fired the shot. How me and big Mike was standing, we were standing straight up, so we definitely was outside the vehicle. The bullet came outside the car and struck him. He was never inside of the car and got struck, he was outside the car when the first shot went off. The officer was inside the car, so the gun was inside the car, but when he shot the gun, bullet traveled outside his car and struck big Mike in the chest, or I seen blood coming from.Question: You are not sure where the wound…Dorian: It struck him, I definitely know that it hit him, I saw the blood with the first shot.Question: Are you absolutely certain, I know you talked about being in shock and that kind of thing, this is very important, this jury is trying to get this thing figured out. Are you absolutely certain that you did not see big Mikes hands inside the officers car in a struggle with the officer.Dorian: Now, his hands being inside the car, I won’t speculate on, like I said, there was times where the officer had a good pull and his arm would get in there, but the majority of the time, the officer really didn’t have that much power because of the position that they both had. I’m not saying that he was stronger than the officer, but because the officer was sitting down in his car and big Mike was standing up and he had better, more strength in the pulling from the officer.**********************************They talk a lot about where Dorian was standing after, and Mike running away. Then they get back to the “hands in the air part here…**********************************Question: All right. He turns around, show us again how his hands were.Dorian: His hands, this one is higher, this hand is higher, this one is, like I said, he was definitely struck with the first shot. So I could tell he was injured because this hand was a little lower than this hand. As I’m looking at him, he said I’m, he didn’t say I’m unarmed per se, he said I don’t have a gun, but he’s still mad, he has his angry face. I don’t have a gun. And he goes, he never started running because, you know, he’s hit, but sort of, I don’t have a gun. And before he can say the second sentence or before he can even get it out, that when the several more shots came.Question: How close would you say the officer was to big Mike when big Mike is saying to him, I don’t have a gun. Like can you kind of show us?
Dorian: Yes. Hes not on the sidewalk no more, hes on the street level now and the officer has, hes not so close to the third car, but he’s like, hes not on the sidewalk on the other side, hes closer to the side of the street opposite side of big Mike.Question: Where are you?Dorian: I’m still standing right in plain sight standing on the side.Question: You can hear him say I don’t have a gun?Dorian: I can see him start to say somethingQuestion: What did you hear him say, if anything?Dorian: I heard him start to say I don’t have, but you know, in my state of mind in my shock, I’m bouncing in and out. Time, in my mind slowed down and everything. I can see what is going on. Question: Let me just make sure I understand because this is important. Does he actually say, did you actually hear him say, I don’t have a gun or this is what you are thinking hes trying to say?Dorian: No, the first statement was I don’t have a gun.Question: Your heard him say that?Dorian: yes, I don’t have a gun.Question: okayDorian: The second statement he was starting to say I, you know, he couldn’t get the full sentence out before the rest of the shots hit his body. And I stood and watched face to face as every shot was fired and as his body went down and his body never. His body kind of just went down and fell, you know, like a step, you know what I’m saying? Like a step, his body just kind of collapsed down and he just fell.Question: Was he walking towards the officer as he was collapsing?Dorian: He couldn’t get a step off like. When he was giving his second sentence, what he was going to say, it was like he was going to step close to the officer, but like I said, before he could even get that sentence out, the rest of the shots was hitting him and he was going down.Question: And shots being fired as he was going down?Dorian: Shots was definitely fired while he was going down. The last shot he fired he was so close to the ground, it looked to me like he was already on the ground. His knees were, he was going down, he was already down before the last shot came.Dorian then says he took off running after this out of fear that the officer would come after him. This is now at page 127 for anyone wanted to read that.
Thank you Jen Ow! :-DThat is what I feel too, and I'm fairly certain the reason they want to distance themselves from the actual answer is because it's not true. I also had the thought that saying "I don't know" bought them some time to think of a response.I just wanted to get some feedback from you guys to see if I'm on the right track. More opinions are welcome!
Kellie said...OTWhat could it indicate if a person answers a question with, "I don't know" yet continues with a specific answer to the question?I'm happy to hear from anyone on this question. Thanks!Hi, Kellie,Depending on the answer given ? I would ask questions back (open questions) using the "persons" own language.Ie. ""I don't know" it may have been xyz etc ?Then, i would ask "what/why" etc makes you feel that... ? making sure not to introduce new words, but only using the "persons" own words.
" He said the cop reached out and grabbed Mikes shirt collar. And was able to hold him and Mike could not pull away.So first major discrepancy. Mike is 6’4. For the cop to reach his collar while sitting inside the car, Mike had to be leaning in or down. Standing up would be physically impossible. And a 300 pound man with the advantage due to leverage (standing and able to use both arms to push against the car) could not get away from a man sitting with one arm and no leverage. I call BS on this whole thing."I'm not saying what did or did not happen, but it is physically possible. Wilson was in an SUV. The height of my SUV is 6 ft. From inside, I can easily touch the roof of my SUV. If Mike is 6 ft 4, and his head is around the typical 10 inches for a person, his collar is the at about 5 ft 6, which is about 2/3rds up the window. Wilson may not have grabbed it but he certainly could have.
To Kellie in response to your question about a person saying "I don't know" and then continuing on with a specific answer. I can think of two things and they're quite different but in general it seems like it could be either of these. They might be very honest about the fact that they really don't know for sure since sometimes the question that is being asked has more to do with an opinion or their perception of what happened rather than the facts about a situation. If they are a person who is very literal and careful, they recognize that their opinion or what they perceived to have happened isn't necessarily fact. If, after saying they don't know, they continue on to answer the question, it may be that they're offering an opinion of what they think happened or what they perceived or saw - all the while acknowledging that there may be more to the story. The other scenario that I can imagine is that the person doesn't want to acknowledge any real knowledge of anything, as Jen Ow said, they want to distance themselves from it and act like they have nothing to do with it. If I suspected that to be the case, I would expect that there'd be a lot of missing information in whatever they do offer to share after saying that they don't know. I'd look to see if they seemed to be steering the conversation or the thoughts in a certain direction or away from another direction. I'd also look for any kind of acting involved or other signs of defensiveness.
He doesn't call himself a "soldier", all he says is "if I was a phony...". He doesn't call himself a soldier and we don't know what he considers a "phony."
No reliable denial... we can't say it for him.
That all makes sense. My short answer is they are buying time to think.
OT'Flamboyant Republican conservative' who Lena Dunham claims raped her in college 'does not exist', new report claimsActor, 28, alleges that she was raped at Oberlin College in her memoir Not That Kind Of GirlMedia investigation at the Ohio campus found no proof of the man she describes in the book as her alleged attackerNamed as 'Barry', one man who somewhat fits the description says he has never met DunhamDunham has been accused of being 'grossly irresponsible' in publishing the claimShe did not report the incident to authoritiesSnipped:'I never, gave permission to be rough, to stick himself inside me without a barrier between us,' she wrote."I never gave him permission."Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2861243/Flamboyant-Republican-conservative-raped-Lena-Dunham-college-ghost-does-not-exist-new-report-claims.html#ixzz3KyKuhhik
Thank you John and TrishaPatk!I know that one statement isn't really enough sample to know for certain, but I'm interested in all the possible variables. So thanks so much!This is a situation close to me and I have knowledge this person tends to be defensive, especially about the topic of this particular question.
Stolen Valor creep.The dude is Sean Yetman and was also arrested for impersonating a police officer in 2003.Yetman seems to be running his own Catch Me If You Can scenario. What a loser.
Post a Comment