I think it would be reasonable to go with the findings of the people who actually know what theyâre talking about. I think itâs foolish not to. Itâs not my concern if you choose to do that.
Still doesnât answer the question.
Neat. Well I still think itâs reasonable to go with the conclusions of the people who actually know what theyâre talking about. If youâre not on board with that, despite having zero knowledge of forensic pathology, then thatâs your problem.
Itâs perfectly reasonable to go with the expertsâ conclusions. That doesnât make it unreasonable to ask if they considered all factors.
We agree that itâs reasonable to go with the expert conclusions. I think itâs unreasonable for you to think youâre bringing up something important that the experts havenât considered in their findings. Theyâre the experts. Youâre not. Iâm going with them. You do whatever the hell you want, I just donât think itâs reasonable of you.
Have they considered it? Thatâs the question, isnât it? A question you didnât know the answer to and when asked if you think they should have, you dodged that question with: âWhat I think is not relevant.â
Neat. Well Iâm still going to go with what the medical experts concluded. Youâre welcome to believe that you thought of something important that they didnât consider. Itâs adorable. Like watching a child pretending to be a doctor.
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.
dcist.com
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?
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 donât 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. Floydâs defense expert testified that it isnât 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 Floydâs 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 didnât think of it, it actually happened.
If there was no physical trauma to prove asphyxiation then itâs conceivable he died by drug-induced heart attack.
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.
Yes, yes. The professional medical examiners didnât think of what you came up with. Youâre so smart.
You told me you didnât know if they addressed it. Are you telling me now they did?
Then what makes a heart attack conceivable? Heart attacks themselves leave trauma that a M.E. could easily see.
