It's always dicey when a criminal case goes political. Not just because of the obvious danger of the facts getting bent to the political end, but also for the opposite danger of the political end making dubious what would otherwise be easily-established facts.
Now we have a third autopsy on Michael Brown.
The second one, as a matter of prudence, I understood. This one is a bit strange. Maybe a criminal lawyer can comment if this happens very often. But I wonder if the findings of the autopsies already conducted make the political agents uncomfortable:
From the New York Times: