>On April 19, the DeKalb County Medical Examiner's office released an autopsy, which found at least 57 gunshot wounds on Paez Terán's body and ruled their death a homicide; the autopsy also found no evidence of gunshot residue on Paez Terán's hands.[7][15]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Manuel_Esteban_Pa...

Aside from the cops' testimony there seems to be 0 evidence supporting that Tortuguita shot at them.

Wikipedia seems to leave out that the state did a more thorough test and did find gun powder residue.

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/autopsy-cop-city-protester-...

"more thorough"

Yes, more thorough. Using a chemical test to look for an often invisible substance is an obvious step to take. Conversely, visually looking for that same substance and then saying it wasn’t there when you don’t see it is laughable.

If I shot you 57 times you'd be lousy with gunpowder residue. Bullet holes and gunpowder residue. So trace amounts of gunpowder residue on a bullet riddled corpse is not in any way conclusive evidence they fired a gun.

There is no evidence I’ve found to support that theory, can you cite a study that flying through the air at close to the speed of sound doesn’t brush GSR particles off the round?

Patterns of Gunshot Residue Gunshot residue (GSR) may be deposited by two mechanisms: (1) impact deposition from particles propelled by the force of the blast, and (2) fallout deposition of drifting particles that settle on a surface. Persons close to the blast, specifically the shooter, will likely have GSR from impact. Bystanders are likely to have GSR particles from fallout. Shooters are more likely to have a greater number of particles than bystanders, but not always. Settling of airborne GSR may take up to 10 minutes following firearm discharge. The depostion of GSR particles following initial firearm discharge is primary transfer. However, secondary transfer of these particles to other surfaces can occur from contact with the surfaces or persons on whom the particles have deposited, as with handshaking or contact with clothing. Movement of persons following the shooting, or even scene investigation by forensic scientists, may alter GSR distribution. Further tertiary or even quaternary transfer is possible. Law enforcement personnel may carry particles from prior shooting events. (Blakey et al, 2018)

The amount and pattern of GSR deposited may vary by the gun used to fire the bullet. Most GSR emanates from the ejection port of a semiautomatic pistol. GSR is expelled from the gap between cylinder and frame of a revolver. There is greater particle number with revolvers than with automatic rifles. Particle numbers are greater with nonjacketed bullets, mainly due to an increase in particles composed of lead. A faster burning rate of propellant powder reduces the distance of GSR particles travelled. (Blakey et al, 2018) (Vachon and Martinez, 2019)

GSR may be expelled from the firearm ahead of the bullet, along with the bullet, and following after the bullet. Though the amount of residue deposited tends to decrease with increasing range of fire, the actual deposits can be highly variable for ranges up to 20 cm.(Brown, Cauchi, et al, 1999) GSR has been reported to be found at distances from 6 to 18 meters forward of the shooter, and up to 6 meters laterally. However, climatic conditions significantly influence recovery rates for GSR. (Dalby et al, 2010) Use of atomic force microscopy (AFM) for detection of particle size in relation to range of fire has been described. (Mou, Lakadwar, and Rabalais, 2008)

https://webpath.med.utah.edu/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNGSR.html

Not to mention it's trivial to leave gunpowder residue on a corpse you know was carrying...

Would hardly be the first time, just a random sample from the last 5 years:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds6g-QyAxbw

https://apnews.com/article/gun-violence-crime-baltimore-82fa...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/st-louis-officer-execut...

https://nypost.com/2020/01/03/nypd-cop-caught-planting-stun-...

Another commenter posted a link that reported they did find gunshot residue: https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/autopsy-cop-city-protester-...

I think it's worth noting that this report comes from the Georgia's GBI, i.e. the same people who are accused of killing the activist in question. The previous report comes from a (nominally) neutral source (the DeKalb County Medical Examiner's office).

In other words: the accused are investigating themselves, and have produced a report that suggests that they were justified in killing a climate activist. I think that's a pattern we'd normally treat with extreme skepticism; it's unclear that GBI has earned an exception to that.

Who should conduct this investigation then?

Depending on the investigation's ultimate scope, either the federal DOJ or an independent investigator's office.

(It hopefully isn't controversial to say that, as a general principle, entities in positions of exceptional public trust or interest should not be tasked with enforcing or regulating themselves.)

I’m not sure what an independent investigators office is, but assuming it’s a private firm would you not have the same criticism that it’s not a neutral third party and is biased towards whoever hired them?

What is the role of a state level investigation bureau if not to investigate state-level issues involving state agencies?

I meant something like Washington DC's OPC[1]. Note that these commissions are not themselves perfect; they're typically limited in authority to "recommendations," which the police (or DA) may still ignore.

However, to answer the following (which isn't what I meant, but I think is interesting):

> but assuming it’s a private firm would you not have the same criticism that it’s not a neutral third party and is biased towards whoever hired them?

I think the answer to this is similar to the answer found in arbitration: arbitration is typically performed by a well-known firm, and that firm is obligated through contract to perform fair proceedings. In other words: there are civil penalties on the table if the independent party does not execute their job fairly.

That being said, I think an unrelated but still governmental investigation arm would be sufficient here.

> What is the role of a state level investigation bureau if not to investigate state-level issues involving state agencies?

You can find the GBI's services listed here[2]. They have a lot of responsibilities, most of which aren't tied to investigation of local police. I think it'd even be fair to say that they aren't particularly equipped to investigate local forces.

[1]: https://policecomplaints.dc.gov/

[2]: https://gbi.georgia.gov/services

Probably not the murderer? FBI, local jurisdiction, literally anyone would be a better choice than the institution accused of committing the crime.

> local jurisdiction

Good news then, the State DA recused and GBI is a different agency than the state police.

>Georgia's GBI, i.e. the same people who are accused of killing the activist in question.

No; the Georgia State Patrol is the primary agency that was involved. It's a different agency.

Nonsense!

We are releasing a photo of the handgun that was in Manuel Esteban Paez Teran’s possession when a Georgia State Patrol trooper was shot on January 18 at the site of the future Atlanta Public Safety Training Center. The handgun is described as a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9mm. Forensic ballistic analysis has confirmed that the projectile recovered from the trooper’s wound matches Teran’s handgun. Other preliminary information released in this case is consistent with the investigation so far.

https://gbi.georgia.gov/press-releases/2023-04-14/gbi-invest...

So they have a photo of a gun that was "in his possession" but not of him actually possessing or welding it, and also testimony about an autopsy where the lack of gunpowder on his hands indicates he didn't shoot it. Truly damning evidence, next we will see a picture of the car registered in his name that he could have used to run over puppies and children.

They have records of him buying the gun. It was in his possession.

Him having a gun is not evidence of him using one.

That is correct, records of him buying the gun are not evidence of him using it. I was responding to this part of your comment "So they have a photo of a gun that was "in his possession" but not of him actually _possessing_ [...] Truly damning evidence" There's ample evidence that he possessed the gun, we don't need a photograph of literally everything to reasonably conclude things.

The bullet they found in a cop's stomach matching the gun he owned is evidence that he used it, albeit not unimpeachable proof because matching bullets to guns is a matter you can reasonably question. Nevertheless, I think the sum of the evidence thus-far presented supports the narrative that he shot a cop then the cops turned him into swiss cheese, possibly with the man trying in vane to surrender while that was happening.

OK, he owned a gun, that was found with him, at the time of his death, and his hands were found to have primer residue. Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

From [7]:

'While the official autopsy report states “gunpowder residue is not seen” on Teran’s hands, it is not conclusive because gunpowder is not always visible to the naked eye. A gunshot residue kit was performed, but those results have not been returned from the GBI Crime Lab, the medical examiner’s office told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.'

Those results were later released. They were positive.

I shoot handguns on a monthly basis. Anecdotally, I have to do a lot of shooting before I have visible residue on my hands.

Allegedly.

Either way, he surrendered to the police with both hands empty, and was shot a dozen times. Then the police officers that were involved lied in the report.

Also allegedly, right?

There is no evidence of this and some recordings of a cop saying it was another cop.

I have no horse in this race, but there is not “no evidence”.

A handgun registered to the activist was found at the scene and ballistics from the bullet that struck the officer matches that gun.

Later, the crime lab reported finding gun shot residue on the activist’s hands.

I think those 3 things together combined with ample witness testimony would typically be considered proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The forensic evidence says his hands were empty (exit wounds though both palms), his arms were raised, and he was probably sitting on the ground cross legged when the cops shot him at least a dozen times.

The initial crime lab report showed no gun shot residue, and the forensics imply the police lied about the incident. Witnesses testimony is contradictory.

In my opinion, there’s no reasonable doubt that the police murdered him, execution-style. There is reasonable doubt that he shot the officer.

>The initial crime lab report showed no gun shot residue

The initial report was only a visual inspection. When you do a more sensitive test, you get more accurate results. There is nothing sinister about this sequence of events.

An environmental activist who shot at, and potentially wounded, a police officer.

This is like a drug trial that reports deaths and neglects that people died in a car accident.

Yale should be more responsible and work harder to have accurate reports if they want people to use their reports.

> Yale should be more responsible and work harder to have accurate reports if they want people to use their reports.

Why do you think Yale even included the incident that the parent commenter was referring to?