This has become political instead of factual, just like the Trayvon Martin case. You don't want your political opponent to define the other candidate or the issues.
True, but remember that they are staring straight down the barrel of the race pimps and the full wrath of the media. While I agree wholeheartedly that it would be better to get their side out earlier rather than later, they also have to consider (and prepare for) the onslaught of lawsuits and demagoguery. Anything they say now can, and will be, used against them in the months to follow.
I am now 95% convinced that the autopsy showed that Gentle was not moving away from the officer, nor was he kneeling while he was “executed”, but rather he was moving toward the officer, and the final shots were from relatively close distance. If that is the case, then any political damage would be mitigated by a convincing volume of forensic evidence. But mistakes, even trivial ones, have a way of haunting you when the professionally aggrieved get their bite at the apple (which, in this case, is usually someone’s wallet).
One other difference from the Martin case. In the Martin case, there was no way that forensic evidence was going to show who started the altercation, which was a primary point of dispute between the media’s story, and the truthful story. Here, the autopsy, and other evidence, should be able to rule in or out, the testimony of Mr. Giant’s peers and accomplices. While I am still somewhat impressed by the ability of the left to simply ignore evidence and logic, which they did in the Martin case, arguing against an autopsy will be beyond even them (well, most of them).