Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

GreeBo

penny piper wrote: »

Didn't the autopsy from the Hannepen Medical office ...add that the amount of drugs/health issues floyd had contributed plus the neck restraint? I agree they both called homicide but slightly differing from the floyd family private autopsy..

They come up with a single cause of death, anything else that the victim had going on at their time of death goes into the "contributory" section, it doesnt necessarily mean it was involved in the death.

NYTimes wrote:

When someone dies, a death certificate is filled out for both public health and legal reasons. The form includes a cause of death in the first section and contributing factors in the second section. “We usually have to come up with one cause,” said Dr. Judy Melinek, a board-certified forensic pathologist. Everything else significant “that might be wrong with a person is ‘contributing.’”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/08/us/george-floyd-cause-of-death.html

BattleCorp

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't see the relevance of any drugs or medical issues Floyd had, anyone who has their carotid artery knelt on for 9 mins is probably going to die.

I'm not a medical professional but I'm wondering if what it says on page 12 of the Hennepin County autopsy is relevant to the above point as it says that there were no signs of hypoxyic-ischemic changes in the brain which one would expect to see if someone had their cartoid artery blocked for 9 minutes?

briany

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not a medical professional but I'm wondering if what it says on page 12 of the Hennepin County autopsy is relevant to the above point as it says that there were no signs of hypoxyic-ischemic changes in the brain which one would expect to see if someone had their cartoid artery blocked for 9 minutes?

If the prosecution thought they had an argument to say the carotid artery was compressed, they'd probably be using it, but the thrust of the prosecution's case seems to be that the position of the knee, with the bodyweight of Chauvin applied, slowly suffocated Floyd.

penny piper

GreeBo wrote: »

They come up with a single cause of death, anything else that the victim had going on at their time of death goes into the "contributory" section, it doesnt necessarily mean it was involved in the death.

l[/url]

I agree with your cause of death/"contributory" section...
but in saying that as the definition of "contributory" means/can mean "helping to cause something"....... I think it's really an important point for the defense that it will be brought up in this case.

briany

penny piper wrote: »

I agree with your cause of death/"contributory" section...
but in saying that as the definition of "contributory" means/can mean "helping to cause something"....... I think it's really an important point for the defense that it will be brought up in this case.

I don't think "contributory", by the definition you gave, would be enough. They'd have to make a successful argument that Floyd's health was a bigger factor than the knee itself, otherwise it's a case of, "he may have died a bit easier, but he still died."

penny piper

Call me Al wrote: »

He's very concise.
And he sounds so so Irish. Not a hint of an American accent.

He testified that Mr Floyd essentially had a pneumonectomy done to him. Crikey!

I thought he was "long winded" and appeared to be giving a lecture in UCD...he was really making general comments....he wasn't involved in george floyd's case/autopsy...and if any police officer was listening to him I'd say they'd be frightened to put a pair of handcuffs on anyone...the position where they need to be etc...
I can't believe that jury could be possibly pay attention to that guy for the lenght of time he's been giving evidence.

He also might not be getting paid for his testimony but he got plenty of free publicity for his book ...the one the prosecutor showed.....

briany

penny piper wrote: »

I thought he was "long winded" and appeared to be giving a lecture in UCD...he was really making general comments....he wasn't involved in george floyd's case/autopsy...and if any police officer was listening to him I'd say they'd be frightened to put a pair of handcuffs on anyone...the position where they need to be etc...
I can't believe that jury could be possibly pay attention to that guy for the lenght of time he's been giving evidence.

He also might not be getting paid for his testimony but he got plenty of free publicity for his book ...the one the prosecutor showed.....

I watched that testimony and he was giving a lot of specific analysis, not just general comments, analysing the position of the knee on the neck, where he can see Chauvin putting much of his weight on, formulas on breathing capacity, Floyd's breathing rate and where it would be for a healthy man vs someone OD'ing on Fentanyl, the point at which he loses consciousness and the level of oxygenation in the blood. I found most of commentary easy enough to follow.

penny piper

briany wrote: »

I don't think "contributory", by the definition you gave, would be enough. They'd have to make a successful argument that Floyd's health was a bigger factor than the knee itself, otherwise it's a case of, "he may have died a bit easier, but he still died."

I just look at it from the defense point of view....you need to throw in anything that might make the jury think. The amount of drugs floyd had in his body needs to be used...it's just another side of the arguement....

penny piper

briany wrote: »

I watched that testimony and he was giving a lot of specific analysis, not just general comments, analysing the position of the knee on the neck, where he can see Chauvin putting much of his weight on, formulas on breathing capacity, Floyd's breathing rate and where it would be for a healthy man vs someone OD'ing on Fentanyl, the point at which he loses consciousness and the level of oxygenation in the blood. I found most of commentary easy enough to follow.

I didn't find it hard to follow ...just long winded ... and alot of unnecessary information....that's just my opinion......

briany

penny piper wrote: »

I just look at it from the defense point of view....you need to throw in anything that might make the jury think. The amount of drugs floyd had in his body needs to be used...it's just another side of the arguement....

Of course the defence will use that argument. I expect it to be one of the main strategies for testing the prosecution's position, if not the main one. But they have a big hill to climb in arguing against the findings of both autopsies plus the medical experts the prosecution brings on the stand that Floyd's health was the biggest factor.

bazermc

I’d say this Irish professor will be on the late late once the trial is over.

All_in_Flynn

penny piper wrote: »

I thought he was "long winded" and appeared to be giving a lecture in UCD...he was really making general comments....he wasn't involved in george floyd's case/autopsy...and if any police officer was listening to him I'd say they'd be frightened to put a pair of handcuffs on anyone...the position where they need to be etc...
I can't believe that jury could be possibly pay attention to that guy for the lenght of time he's been giving evidence.

He also might not be getting paid for his testimony but he got plenty of free publicity for his book ...the one the prosecutor showed.....

I've just watch the entire testimony of Dr Tobin. I'm not sure how anyone can describe the comments he was making as 'general'. It was about as scientific and measured as you could probably get. He pinpointed the exact time George died.

In my opinion that was a massively damaging witness for the defence. He gave Eric Nelson a really difficult time. I've said it previously but the defence are going to have to come up with evidence that the cause of death was something else. They are in a deep hole here.

All_in_Flynn

@penny piper - Why did you delete your reply agreeing with me and saying you thought that Dr Tobin was bad for the defence and that Nelson had a very difficult time with him?

ACitizenErased

Martin Tobin will never have to pay for a pint again, Nelson looked stunned

MonkieSocks

Live Here

https://abcnews.go.com/Live/video/abcnews-live-41463246

McCrack

The Irish Dr from Freshford, what a brilliant man, he is so experienced and his evidence was extremely measured. He put it very clearly balancing technical and also being mindful all the time he is talking to a jury. Very impressive

briany

Dr William Smock on now and saying there was no signs of significant heart disease found at autopsy.

MeMen2_MoRi_

I suspect the thread goes quiet after today..

BattleCorp

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

I suspect the thread goes quiet after today..

Probably not. Doctors often differ. Engineers differ..etc.

This doctor appears to be rubbishing the Hennepin County autopsy as that mentions heart disease as the autopsy says this.

Natural diseases A. Arteriosclerotic heart disease, multifocal, severe B. Hypertensive heart disease 1. Cardiomegaly (540 g) with mild biventricular dilatation 2. Clinical history of hypertension

That looks like significant heart disease to me, especially the word 'severe'.

I've gone to engineering reports for accidents where an engineer for the plaintiff and an engineer for the defendant examine the exact same set of facts and come up with wildly different reports and causes for the accidents.

The defence will have other doctors etc. who will rubbish what Smock says.

RobertKK

The prosecution could not have hoped for any better as Dr Martin Tobin was superb.

No way can Chauvin get an innocent verdict after this.

MeMen2_MoRi_

penny piper wrote: »

Look, idk how many posts ago I just used Courtney Ross as an example that she came across poorly as a witness for the state.....if you are a prosecutor you don't want someone who will build up someone who you are representing (george floyd) ie:make him sound like a "saint"...five mins later admit he was a drug addict/like her/using other people's prescriptions etc.....it just isn't something a prosecutor would want her saying....
Look idc whether anyone/you watches it live...that's up to you/them...and I also have no problem with you not taking my word for it.....ok?

The prosecutor asked questions of the girlfriend too show that for all the wrongs (there was many as we all know because he's dead) there was a person, a human still there for all his faults.

What line of questioning would you expect from a defence lawyer? To continue that line of questions of George being a "saint" or dig into the dark parts of George's life.. big bad drug addict, his autopsy shows drugs in his system.. to try and deny that George took drugs would be complete stupidity, yet you don't see this.. says a lot!

Mellor

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Not guilty verdict incoming IMO

Probably 1 not guilty. Maybe 2. 3 Unlikely imo.

penny piper wrote: »

Didn't the autopsy from the Hannepen Medical office ...add that the amount of drugs/health issues floyd had contributed plus the neck restraint?

No.
The drugs did not feature in the cause of death in either report.

Other factors would have included all medical issues. Say if it had gangrene on his big toe, it would be listed there.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not a medical professional but I'm wondering if what it says on page 12 of the Hennepin County autopsy is relevant to the above point as it says that there were no signs of hypoxyic-ischemic changes in the brain which one would expect to see if someone had their cartoid artery blocked for 9 minutes?

Not a medical professional either, but I've one a bit of research on carotid artery compression. Unrelated to the trial, I actually happened to read a report on the topic earlier in the week.

Full carotid compression would have resulted in unconsciousness in less than 10 seconds. And continued compression would result in hypoxia and associated brain damage.

Clearly, there wasn't full compression here. But that doesn't mean there wasn't partial compression. To clarify, even full compression doesn't cut off 100% of the blood, it just cuts off enough to see an near instant effect.
Partial compression could cut off enough blood so that the brain was using more than it received slowly draining brain function.

Add to that trachea compression reducing the air received, and oxygen saturation of the blood. And chest compression which limits the ability of the lungs to function.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Probably not. Doctors often differ. Engineers differ..etc.

This doctor appears to be rubbishing the Hennepin County autopsy as that mentions heart disease as the autopsy says this.

That looks like significant heart disease to me, especially the word 'severe'.

I agree that Doctors will differ. As engineers will. They can only form an opinion, they can't say for sure. But there is a key difference in the wording of the two statement that might not mean they are disagreeing at all.

One said Severe heart disease. That's a statement of the state of his health, not the manner of death.

The other said significant heart disease. Which is a statement that the heart disease was not significant in the death.

Both of those can be true. Again, using the gangrene toe example;
An autopsy might say there was severe gangrene present.
And an expert in court could testify that the gangrene was not significant.
Both would be correct.

Real Donald Trump

McCrack wrote: »

The Irish Dr from Freshford, what a brilliant man, he is so experienced and his evidence was extremely measured. He put it very clearly balancing technical and also being mindful all the time he is talking to a jury. Very impressive

Embarrassing stuff praising this guy just because he's Irish, do ye need to jump on the bandwagon every time because they're Irish ? It's extremely cringeworthy. Anyway, I thought the video footage of George saying "he ate too many drugs" quite interesting, but ofc that was not the main contribution to his death..

McCrack

Real Donald Trump wrote: »

Embarrassing stuff praising this guy just because he's Irish, do ye need to jump on the bandwagon every time because they're Irish ? It's extremely cringeworthy. Anyway, I thought the video footage of George saying "he ate too many drugs" quite interesting, but ofc that was not the main contribution to his death..

Lol the Donald, pity twitter banned you

Mellor

Real Donald Trump wrote: »

Embarrassing stuff praising this guy just because he's Irish, do ye need to jump on the bandwagon every time because they're Irish ?

The praise was for doing a great job. Why wrong with pointing out somebody is Irish. The reading comprehension wasn't the sharpest there Don.

Brussels Sprout

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

I suspect the thread goes quiet after today..

After seeing some of that doctor's testimony I decided to have a look to see how certain people here would try and spin it in Chauvin's favour. The thread had been so inactive it was nearly gone onto the second page of the forum!

All_in_Flynn

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

After seeing some of that doctor's testimony I decided to have a look to see how certain people here would try and spin it in Chauvin's favour. The thread had been so inactive it was nearly gone onto the second page of the forum!

The Irish doctor was one of the best witnesses I've ever seen. The defence were scratching their heads when he was batting down their attempts to discredit his testimony.

Many of the arguments that were put forward here were blown out of the water yesterday. They clearly explained how and why it was asphyxiation as a result of how he was detained. That the drugs in his system were not the cause of his death. That in any case, a completely healthy person in the same position would have died also. His heart disease was also completely overstated too.

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

The prosecutor asked questions of the girlfriend too show that for all the wrongs (there was many as we all know because he's dead) there was a person, a human still there for all his faults.

What line of questioning would you expect from a defence lawyer? To continue that line of questions of George being a "saint" or dig into the dark parts of George's life.. big bad drug addict, his autopsy shows drugs in his system.. to try and deny that George took drugs would be complete stupidity, yet you don't see this.. says a lot!

You should really read what you post first

BattleCorp

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

After seeing some of that doctor's testimony I decided to have a look to see how certain people here would try and spin it in Chauvin's favour. The thread had been so inactive it was nearly gone onto the second page of the forum!

Well, did anyone spin it in favour of Chauvin?

penny piper

BattleCorp wrote: »

Probably not. Doctors often differ. Engineers differ..etc.

This doctor appears to be rubbishing the Hennepin County autopsy as that mentions heart disease as the autopsy says this.



That looks like significant heart disease to me, especially the word 'severe'.

I've gone to engineering reports for accidents where an engineer for the plaintiff and an engineer for the defendant examine the exact same set of facts and come up with wildly different reports and causes for the accidents.

The defence will have other doctors etc. who will rubbish what Smock says.

I agree with you but in saying that Tobin did a good spin job for the prosecution and Nelson was clearly not able to catch him on anything he's not a forensic patholigist he should have used that in some way...then the next witness the toxiology guy ....Nelson not having anything up to date ....looked very bad for Nelson....He came across as completely unprepared.
Nelson will really need to up his game.....when he's cross examining these experts.