Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think it would be reasonable to go with the findings of the people who actually know what they’re talking about. I think it’s foolish not to. It’s not my concern if you choose to do that.That doesn’t answer the question. Are you saying that if they did not consider Floyd’s prior respiratory distress that I should agree with their findings anyway?
Still doesn’t answer the question.I think it would be reasonable to go with the findings of the people who actually know what they’re talking about. I think it’s foolish not to. It’s not my concern if you choose to do that.
Neat. Well I still think it’s reasonable to go with the conclusions of the people who actually know what they’re talking about. If you’re not on board with that, despite having zero knowledge of forensic pathology, then that’s your problem.Still doesn’t answer the question.
Two things here:
1.) Just so you know, asking questions does not make one unreasonable.
2.) If I am neutral, it means I don’t agree with their findings. It also means I don’t disagree.
You’ve been trying maneuver me into a definite position this whole time and you are either too dense or too stubborn on the topic to understand that it’s not always so simple.
It’s perfectly reasonable to go with the experts’ conclusions. That doesn’t make it unreasonable to ask if they considered all factors.Neat. Well I still think it’s reasonable to go with the conclusions of the people who actually know what they’re talking about. If you’re not on board with that, despite having zero knowledge of forensic pathology, then that’s your problem.
We agree that it’s reasonable to go with the expert conclusions. I think it’s unreasonable for you to think you’re bringing up something important that the experts haven’t considered in their findings. They’re the experts. You’re not. I’m going with them. You do whatever the hell you want, I just don’t think it’s reasonable of you.It’s perfectly reasonable to go with the experts’ conclusions. That doesn’t make it unreasonable to ask if they considered all factors.
Have they considered it? That’s the question, isn’t it? A question you didn’t know the answer to and when asked if you think they should have, you dodged that question with: “What I think is not relevant.”We agree that it’s reasonable to go with the expert conclusions. I think it’s unreasonable for you to think you’re bringing up something important that the experts haven’t considered in their findings. They’re the experts. You’re not. I’m going with them. You do whatever the hell you want, I just don’t think it’s reasonable of you.
Neat. Well I’m still going to go with what the medical experts concluded. You’re welcome to believe that you thought of something important that they didn’t consider. It’s adorable. Like watching a child pretending to be a doctor.Have they considered it? That’s the question, isn’t it? A question you didn’t know the answer to and when asked if you think they should have, you dodged that question with: “What I think is not relevant.”
Is it an important fact that he said he was having trouble breathing before hand? What people say it a lot less important than what the physical examination shows.Have they considered it? That’s the question, isn’t it? A question you didn’t know the answer to and when asked if you think they should have, you dodged that question with: “What I think is not relevant.”
You can’t even tell me if they took an important fact into consideration that may have changed the outcome of a trial that sent a man to prison for twenty two years but you think I’m being unreasonable for simply asking a question.
You’re weak.
Fine. In the meantime, I will continue to withhold judgment until I have a clearer picture as to whether the MEs took into account Floyd’s prior breathing problem.
This does not, in any way, call their expertise into question, no matter how much you want that to be the case.
If they had taken it into consideration and I still expressed skepticism then you might have had a valid argument that I questioned their expertise. But alas, that is not the case.
dcist.com
Is it an important fact that he said he was having trouble breathing before hand?
What people say it a lot less important than what the physical examination shows.
Andrew Baker testified that Floyd was murdered you dumb Bingo. As the other poster pointed out his memo stated that there was no sign that physical trauma caused the asphyxiation. However physical trauma isn't necessary to cause asphyxiation. You can asphyxiate without suffering physical trauma. Why are you so stuck on stupid?Yes, it was. You don’t think so?
The physical examination by the original ME, Andrew Baker, said there were no physical signs of asphyxiation. Further, in a memo detailing a meeting between Baker and county attorneys, the attorneys were told by Baker that it did not appear that Floyd died by asphyxiation.
Having said that, don’t misunderstand my position. I’m not arguing that they ruled asphyxiation in error even considering Floyd’s respiratory distress prior to Chauvin’s knee on his neck.
My question is: Did they consider Floyd’s prior trouble breathing when the independent MEs did their autopsy? Was it even brought up in the trial?
I suspect it was not considered because I never hear anything about it when the topic comes up or when I read anything about it and no one seems to know.
The problem here is that (in my opinion anyway), context is not proof.Actually. They did. It was part of their investigation. It was why they said something that the CT folks have taken out and run with. If Floyd had been found in a vehicle dead, they would have ruled it an overdose.
However context brought that into doubt. Context. If you bring me a dead cat all I can tell you is that it is a cat. And it is dead. If you tell me you found it on the side of the road. Ok. We know more. The cat is dead. And it was probably run over by a car. It may have succumbed to dehydration or starvation.
On the other hand if you tell me it was found outside a Chinese Restaurant the Likely causes of death change don’t they? Poison, bludgeoned to death, or just some disease we know little about.
Context is the key. As much information about the circumstances to create as complete picture of the events as possible. For Chauvin. The context is well established. The Pulmonologist testified that the asphyxiation was a result of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd. Floyd’s defense expert testified that it isn’t unusual not to find signs of asphyxiation in a person who died that way. The contusions and bruising take time to develop. And especially in Blacks the signs are very hard to find.
The Defense Coroner expressly mentioned Floyd’s previously diagnosed conditions. He said he would rule the death as unknown.
However on Cross Examination he was essential in making the Prosecutions case. You should watch or read it. That cross examination will be used to teach young lawyers how it is done.
Your concerns were considered. And even raised during the trial. Yet the Jury found Chauvin guilty. Additionally the Defense Coroner was humiliated later by a letter signed by hundreds of Medical Examiners who accused him of using Junk science as his practice.
Maryland To Investigate Work Of Former Medical Examiner Who Testified In Chauvin's Defense
The state investigation follows intense criticism of David Fowler's conclusions in the trial against Derek Chauvin for George Floyd's killing.
When 431 peers say you are full of shit. People who are as skilled as you are. You might want to take a second look and reconsider.
I didn’t think of it, it actually happened.Neat. Well I’m still going to go with what the medical experts concluded. You’re welcome to believe that you thought of something important that they didn’t consider. It’s adorable. Like watching a child pretending to be a doctor.
Andrew Baker testified that Floyd was murdered you dumb Bingo.
If there was no physical trauma to prove asphyxiation then it’s conceivable he died by drug-induced heart attack.As the other poster pointed out his memo stated that there was no sign that physical trauma caused the asphyxiation. However physical trauma isn't necessary to cause asphyxiation. You can asphyxiate without suffering physical trauma. Why are you so stuck on stupid?
You don't know how logic or rational thought works do you? It's only conceivably a heart attack if there are physical indications of a heart attack. The absence of physical trauma to the neck isn't evidence of heart trauma you dumb Bingo.I know he did, dumbass. But that’s what his autopsy said.
If there was no physical trauma to prove asphyxiation then it’s conceivable he died by drug-induced heart attack.
Yes, yes. The professional medical examiners didn’t think of what you came up with. You’re so smart.I didn’t think of it, it actually happened.
You don't know how logic or rational thought works do you? It's only conceivably a heart attack if there are physical indications of a heart attack.
The absence of physical trauma to the neck isn't evidence of heart trauma you dumb Bingo.
You told me you didn’t know if they addressed it. Are you telling me now they did?Yes, yes. The professional medical examiners didn’t think of what you came up with. You’re so smart.
Then what makes a heart attack conceivable? Heart attacks themselves leave trauma that a M.E. could easily see.Bullshit.
No shit.
