« | »

CNN Rebuffs Claim That Wilson Had Fractured Eye Socket

From Mediaite:

CNN Contradicts Fox Sources Claiming Darren Wilson Had Fractured Eye Socket

By Matt Wilstein | August 21, 2014

Earlier this week, Fox News reported that Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who shot and killed 18-year-old unarmed Michael Brown, suffered a fractured eye socket following his confrontation with the teenager. The reporter, Hollie McKay, cited a “source close to the [police] department’s top brass” as providing that information to the network.

However, on CNN Thursday, Don Lemon reported that Wilson did not suffer a fractured or broken eye socket and was rather treated at the hospital for swelling around his face and eyes. Noting that that specific injury has not been reported by CNN, “but is making its way around other media organization,” Lemon cited a “source close to the investigation” who told CNN that Wilson’s x-rays came back negative for a fractured eye socket.

“That source says it is not true, at all, he did not have a torn eye socket,” Lemon said. “Unequivocally.” …

So who knows the true? We highly doubt that Don Lemon does.

But, more importantly, does it really matter if Officer Wilson’s orbital socket was actually fractured or not? We now know that Wilson "did sustain an injury during the struggle in the car."

Even the NYT said so, and in those exact words.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Friday, August 22nd, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

One Response to “CNN Rebuffs Claim That Wilson Had Fractured Eye Socket”

  1. bousquem25

    CNN will come up with “sources” to keep the party line going regardless of the facts. Of course many of the same people are also pushing the whole idea that the cops need just pepper spray or taser subjects who are threats (but then will support the crook suing the police for excessive force). They also love the idea of shooting to wound someone or shooting the gun/knife/rock out of their hand. Never mind that shot only is going to happen in the movies, not when you have someone charging at you with a weapon. I also remember reading somewhere about a homeowner shooting a guy breaking in and threatening him with a weapon. The homeowner only shot to wound the crook and ended up causing partial paralysis or something. The crook then turned around and sued the guy for a ton of money for pain and suffering along with the damage done. Normally I would say the case would be laughed out of court but these days depending on the state the crook might win.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »