. >> i want to bring in cnn analyst danny cevallos, paul callan and midwin charles. everyone sees this on every little bit of forensics. midwin, i want you to start. all of a sudden it's seven shots, not six, and trajectory indicates it's while michael brown was falling? could it not also be while michael brown was charging? >> it can. this is why you need to look at all of the evidence in totality. but what i find interesting about this additional bullet that has come out of thin air is that we have to remember that michael brown was unarmed. so that means that this police officer is going to have to explain each and every bullet. at what point did he feel that his life was still in danger after bullet one, after bullet two, after bullet three, after bullet four, so on and so forth. >> we don't shoot on a regular basis perhaps, but bullets are fired, pop, pop, pop, pop, not pop, let me take a peak, let me take another assessment. >> well, you still have to -- you're a trained police officer. >> yeah. >> so you still have to account for your actions, particularly when

joining me now, prosecutor paul henderson and trial attorney and legal analyst, midwin charles.u both for being here. >> thank you. >> if this case had gone to trial work these issues have come up? >> absolutely. one of the first things that attorney dozen when cases to go trial is they focus on how bad the investigation was. and whether or not the investigation was done in a manner to sort of get at the heart of the truth. when anyone looks at how this investigation was done or lack there of, all that comes to mind is that these people are supposed to be trained. they're supposed to be experienced and they're supposed to be professionals. the fact they did not follow protocol raises the question. why is this how they handle all investigations when someone is shot and killed on the street or is it only because a police officer was involved? >> you know something that really struck me. another issue in this police investigation. look at this police lab report that the grand jury examined. it said the offense was an assault on l.e.o. leo, or law enforcement officers. it also refer

i say, give her half. >> lisa bloom and midwin charles, thank you both for your time. >>> coming up,w attack on hillary clinton. bill clinton weighs in on possibly be the first husband on the ellen show. >>> and the calvin klein model at the center of that plus-size controversy speaks out. "conversation nation," next. my mother made the best toffee in the world. it's delicious. so now we've turned her toffee into a business. my goal was to take an idea and make it happen. i'm janet long and i formed my toffee company through legalzoom. i never really thought i would make money doing what i love. we created legalzoom to help people start their business and launch their dreams. go to legalzoom.com today and make your business dream a reality. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side. [but the more you learn abouty insurancyour coverage,bout it. the more gaps you might find. like how you thought you were covered for this. [boy] check it out,mom! [prof. burke]when you're really only covered for this. or how you figured you were covered for this. when you're actually paying for this.

midwin charles, paul callen, help me out here. just spoke to the attorney for the man and asked him what was he trying to accomplish with these messages. he said, this was therapeutic for them, cathartic. this is like what a rapper does with rap songs, blowing off steam. so what should matter here is the intent, not how a reasonable person would respond to the messages. paul, what do you think? >> well, i think this is sort of where art meets the first amendment, meets the criminal law. it's an evolving area. the new jersey supreme court wouldn't allow violent rap lyrics to be used in a murder case where someone had been convicted when the jury was shown the actual violent lyrics that he had written. now we go to the supreme court to get a national rule on this. generally, if the expression was intended by the person charged with the crime to put fear in another person, and a reasonable person hearing what was posted or seeing what was posted would be fearful, that would constitute criminal conduct as opposed to artistic freedom o