George Floyd

[Torquetalk]

Originally Posted by West Coast

No, your point was clear, I just disagree with it. The trial has a narrow perspective, society may perceive it in a larger context. The scope of the context directly related to the outcome.

I‘m sorry West, but I really haven‘t a clue what you are talking about.

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by Torquetalk

I‘m sorry West, but I really haven‘t a clue what you are talking about.

Each case has its own set of circumstances and facts.

Unless you think that this is only about GF

Those particular facts and circumstances dictate that the case is only about GF unless you’re in the media trying to connect dots that shouldn’t be connected.

[Torquetalk]

Originally Posted by West Coast

Each case has its own set of circumstances and facts

I don‘t think has been a single poster who has argued otherwise. You are running through an open door there.

Originally Posted by West Coast

Those particular facts and circumstances dictate that the case is only about GF unless you’re in the media trying to connect dots that shouldn’t be connected.

As hec7or pointed out some posts back; the case itself is not about GF; it is about the actions of Chauvin, who very much appears to have killed a member of the public in broad daylight, and was videoed doing so.

That said, the case is obviously representative of a broader issue of police conduct in the US. And the case clearly has symbolic interest because it was extreme and well documented. And it understandably attracts public and media interest in exactly that context.

Personally I see no value in attempts to try and shift the focus from the obscene treatment of George Floyd to possible (and highly unlikely) other causes or contributors to his death; or that he was a bad guy anyway (and thus didn’t matter/deserved it somehow); or concerns about judicial fairness (when there is actually no reason to doubt in the process), or a pretense that this is just about this one incident and should not be generalized to a bigger picture; when there is a tinderbox of deep anger waiting to be ignited whenever an event like this happens: Because it doesn’t get fixed.

[Haraka]

The latest defense tactic ( including DC invoking the 5th amendment) strikes me as possible preparation for a longer term strategy beyond Minneapolis.
There is more to come from the Defense I suspect , in another arena.

"This one will run and run" Perhaps?

[keith williams]

The fact that the prosecution waited until the defence had closed their case, before suddenly announcing that oxygen tests had in fact been done on George Floyds body was completely unfair. This was then compounded by the expert witness then doing exactly what the judge had said he must not do, was utterly farcical and should have resulted in a mistrial being declared. In all of the confusion both sides failed to understand that if George Floyds blood oxygen level really had been 98 perecent at the time of his death, this would not only have ruled out carbon monoxide poisoning, (as stated by the expert witness) but would also have ruled out positional asphyxiation (or indeed any type of asphyxiation).

I suspect the accused will be initially found guilty, this will be followed by a successful apeal, followed by a retrial in which he will probably be cleared. The city will then burn.

[Haraka]

"I suspect the accused will be initially found guilty, this will be followed by a successful appeal, followed by a retrial in which he will probably be cleared. The city will then burn"

.Oh Yes, A distinct possibility I suspect

[Torquetalk]

Originally Posted by keith williams

The fact that the prosecution waited until the defence had closed their case, before suddenly announcing that oxygen tests had in fact been done on George Floyds body was completely unfair. This was then compounded by the expert witness then doing exactly what the judge had said he must not do, was utterly farcical and should have resulted in a mistrial being declared. In all of the confusion both sides failed to understand that if George Floyds blood oxygen level really had been 98 perecent at the time of his death, this would not only have ruled out carbon monoxide poisoning, (as stated by the expert witness) but would also have ruled out positional asphyxiation (or indeed any type of asphyxiation).

I suspect the accused will be initially found guilty, this will be followed by a successful apeal, followed by a retrial in which he will probably be cleared. The city will then burn.

It appears more to be the case that the information (carbon monoxide level results from a lab) was not available until after both the prosecution and defence has presented evidence. The judge would not allow it to be presented because it would have fundamentally undermined the defence witness testimony on the point of contributory CO levels. The judge considered it too late in the process. Crucially, the jury did not hear that evidence, so it‘s hard to see how it would be the basis of a mistrial, as nothing was actually said that undermined the defence’s case (the judge stopped Dr. Tobin‘s testimony). Looked like the prosecutor was trying it on though,

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by keith williams

The fact that the prosecution waited until the defence had closed their case, before suddenly announcing that oxygen tests had in fact been done on George Floyds body was completely unfair. This was then compounded by the expert witness then doing exactly what the judge had said he must not do, was utterly farcical and should have resulted in a mistrial being declared.

You're misrepresenting what occurred. The defence "expert" (in reality a former medical examiner who testifies at trials of cops using excessive force) speculated without evidence that CO poisoning could've contributed to Floyd's death. As the state had considered this so far fetched they never tabled the blood oxygen levels as evidence, when they attempted to show some hard facts to rebutt that total idiocy the judge informed them it was against procedural rules. It seems it was a desperate defence ploy to gain a mistrial as their case isn't going so well. The world's leading expert on breathing, Dr Martin Tobin, was recalled to simply rebutt the farcical "died from CO poisoning from the exhaust pipe" line.

In all of the confusion both sides failed to understand that if George Floyds blood oxygen level really had been 98 perecent at the time of his death, this would not only have ruled out carbon monoxide poisoning, (as stated by the expert witness) but would also have ruled out positional asphyxiation (or indeed any type of asphyxiation).

No, as Floyd was eventually provided CPR and intubated by paramedics, which raised his O2 back to normal but too much time had passed before this occurred to prevent his death.

[keith williams]

I have no dog in this fight, so I have no reason to misrepresent anything. I would simply like to see a fair trial.

When the judge reluctantly agreed to let Dr Tobin reappear he warned the prosecutiion that any mention of the tests would result in him calling a mistrial. So mistrial was not a suggestion from the defence.

It seems to me that one of two things is true, either.

1. The 98 percent oxygen level existed at the time of George Floyds death, in which case he could not have died of carbon monoxide poisoning or asphyxiation.

Or

2. It did not exist at the time of his death, in which case it has no relevance in determining what the carbon monoxide level could or could not have been.

Dr Tobin used it to refute the suggestion of carbon monoxide poisoning, but he did not also point out that the same high oxygen level would have prevented asphyxiation.

[Torquetalk]

Originally Posted by keith williams

I have no dog in this fight, so I have no reason to misrepresent anything. I would simply like to see a fair trial.

When the judge reluctantly agreed to let Dr Tobin reappear he warned the prosecutiion that any mention of the tests would result in him calling a mistrial. So mistrial was not a suggestion from the defence.

It seems to me that one of two things is true, either.

1. The 98 percent oxygen level existed at the time of George Floyds death, in which case he could not have died of carbon monoxide poisoning or asphyxiation.

Or

2. It did not exist at the time of his death, in which case it has no relevance in determining what the carbon monoxide level could or could not have been.

Dr Tobin used it to refute the suggestion of carbon monoxide poisoning, but he did not also point out that the same high oxygen level would have prevented asphyxiation.

It is a good point. I think the prosecution‘s case is based on point 2, as Dr. Tobin specifically talked about his brain not getting oxygen and this being the cause of his death. It seems he may have been lured into a value-based discussion which was irrelevant. It is also hard to see what relevance the lab values and introducing them as new evidence would have had, if CPR had changed them. But as Dr. Tobin had engaged with that point and the prosection had not successfully refuted its relevance at the time, perhaps they were trying to discount its credibility in any case. Too late for that said the judge.

The jury, perhaps under specific instruction, will have to decide if there is reasonable doubt as to the cause of death. If the defence convinces the jury on that point, Chauvin will be acquitted of murder and manslaughter both.

But that will still be a tall order. He lay on the ground, handcuffed, with Chauvin on his neck, saying he could not breath, with various people showing clear concern for his safety, someone even saying “call the police“ (!), He passed into unconsciousness and Chauvin remained on his neck for 3 further minutes. Eventually he was picked up by ambulance and the paramedics had to force that medical intervention. The ambulance stopped a short distance from the arrest scene to give CPR, but failed to revive him.

Exhaust gasses my arse. Ditto OD and pre-existing health conditions.

My opinion. We‘ll see what the jury make of it.

[lomapaseo]

Originally Posted by keith williams

The fact that the prosecution waited until the defence had closed their case, before suddenly announcing that oxygen tests had in fact been done on George Floyds body was completely unfair. This was then compounded by the expert witness then doing exactly what the judge had said he must not do, was utterly farcical and should have resulted in a mistrial being declared. In all of the confusion both sides failed to understand that if George Floyds blood oxygen level really had been 98 perecent at the time of his death, this would not only have ruled out carbon monoxide poisoning, (as stated by the expert witness) but would also have ruled out positional asphyxiation (or indeed any type of asphyxiation).

I suspect the accused will be initially found guilty, this will be followed by a successful apeal, followed by a retrial in which he will probably be cleared. The city will then burn.

I probably missed something (I don't watch the trial) but I thought that the jury was out of the room when the judge declared the exhibit was not to be included. If, so why would it be a mistrial?

[keith williams]

The jury were out of the room when the subject of the new evidence was discussed and the judge gave his warning limiting what could be discussed. But they were in the room when Dr Tobin sarted his evidence,
. He immediately held out his wrist and started to explain how the test was carried out. The judge was clearly very annoyed and called a halt. So the prosecution had done exactly what the judge had said they must not do. The court tv staff were clearly amazed at what they had just seen, and immediately started talking about mistrials.

It seems the the Medical Examiner had been aware of the test and results but had failed to include it in the material provided when the court asked for all of his records long before the trial. Dr Fowler, the defence witness who first suggested carbon monoxide poisoning had previously included this suggestion in his written statement several weeks before tesifying, so the prosecution had ample time to prepare. In fact they failed to do, and it was only when the Medical examiner watched the trial that he said, oh Idid that test.

When Dr Tobin reappeared with the new evidence, the defence had no time to prepare and their expert was out of the state flying home, so could not be consulted. It was in this confusion that the defence failed to spot the fact that 98 percent oxygen precluded both the possibilities of asphyxiation and carbon monoxide poisoning.

The sad fact is tgat neither side is looking for the truth. Both are simply trying to win. A clear example of this was when the prosecution had Dr Fowler read out two paragraphs from a statement which appeared to contradict his evidence, but then prevented him from reading the third paragraph, which would have put the first two into contex and completely changed the meaningt. Correct context would not helped the proseecution, so they tried to ensure that it was not seen. Fortunately the defence then brought it out.

[double_barrel]

Originally Posted by Torquetalk

...... He lay on the ground, handcuffed, with Chauvin on his neck, saying he could not breath, with various people showing clear concern for his safety, someone even saying “call the police“ (!), He passed into unconsciousness and Chauvin remained on his neck for 3 further minutes. Eventually he was picked up by ambulance and the paramedics had to force that medical intervention. The ambulance stopped a short distance from the arrest scene to give CPR, but failed to revive him.

Exhaust gasses my arse. Ditto OD and pre-existing health conditions.

My opinion. We‘ll see what the jury make of it.

Quite. That seems blindingly obvious. But it only takes one member of the jury to take all the confusing chatter to add up to reasonable doubt about the cause of death. And traditionally, American juries strongly prefer to believe police accounts over other kinds of evidence.

[Torquetalk]

Originally Posted by keith williams

The sad fact is tgat neither side is looking for the truth. Both are simply trying to win. A clear example of this was when the prosecution had Dr Fowler read out two paragraphs from a statement which appeared to contradict his evidence, but then prevented him from reading the third paragraph, which would have put the first two into contex and completely changed the meaningt. Correct context would not helped the proseecution, so they tried to ensure that it was not seen. Fortunately the defence then brought it out.

That is the nature of an adversarial system and truth can be a casualty. The respective parties are just doing their jobs by arguing the case for their side. A trial by judge can be superior in this respect. The judge can insist on further elucidation of testimony and evidence to assist them in their determinations.

But I didn‘t get the impression that the attempt by the prosecution to make their point, despite the judges warning, was prejudicial. The judge stopping testimony does not make a good impression on the jury. And the evidence wasn’t heard.

[Torquetalk]

Originally Posted by double_barrel

Quite. That seems blindingly obvious. But it only takes one member of the jury to take all the confusing chatter to add up to reasonable doubt about the cause of death. And traditionally, American juries strongly prefer to believe police accounts over other kinds of evidence.

Must it be a unanimous verdict or can it be a majority verdict?

[keith williams]

Torquetalk.

You say that the evidence was not heard. But when Dr Tobin resumed his speech following the interuption he used the 98 percent test result to argue that this proved that the carbon monoxide level could be no greater than 2 percent. The logical conclusion being that the suggestion that the death may have been due to crbon monoxide poisoning could not possibly have been true. So although he did not actually use the words (A test was carried outon George Floyds body), the implication must have been obvious to every member of the jury.

If the matter had been dealt with properly, Dr Fowler would have been forewarned and have been able to argue that if the 98 percent oxygen level had existed at the time of death, it owuld have precluded both asphxiation (which the prosecution witnesses had argued was the cause of death), and carbon monoxide poisoning.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Torquetalk

Must it be a unanimous verdict or can it be a majority verdict?

Unanimous, and of course there's that "beyond a reasonable doubt" aspect - not the "preponderance of the evidence". It's intentionally difficult to get a guilty verdict - the philosophy being 'better to let 100 guilty people go then to convict one innocent'.

A hung jury is my prediction - which won't result in as widespread rioting as 'not guilty', but there will still be widespread rioting...

[Torquetalk]

Originally Posted by keith williams

Torquetalk.

You say that the evidence was not heard. But when Dr Tobin resumed his speech following the interuption he used the 98 percent test result to argue that this proved that the carbon monoxide level could be no greater than 2 percent. The logical conclusion being that the suggestion that the death may have been due to crbon monoxide poisoning could not possibly have been true. So although he did not actually use the words (A test was carried outon George Floyds body), the implication must have been obvious to every member of the jury.

If the matter had been dealt with properly, Dr Fowler would have been forewarned and have been able to argue that if the 98 percent oxygen level had existed at the time of death, it owuld have precluded both asphxiation (which the prosecution witnesses had argued was the cause of death), and carbon monoxide poisoning.

My understanding from watching the reviews of the testimony in court is that the judge had given guidance pre-hearing, on the non-admissibility of the lab info (cited as new evidence by the prosecution). During Dr. Tobin’s rebuttal testimony it looked like he was being led by the prosecutor to talk about that report and the judge then recessed to rebuke the prosecution on that point. The testimony from Dr. Tobin then continued uninterrupted. I think however you turn it around, the fact that the judge allowed Dr. Tobin to continue, clearly indicates that he did not consider that his guidance was being breached and that the prosecution was in contempt.

As to the 98% and 2%, I think it is probably really easy to fall into some logic traps about what is a percentage of what with respect to the volumes being measured and confusing normal and healthy values of oxygen versus a toxic level of carbon monoxide. Best left to to medical testimony.

Nor, would any of this discussion of percentages of oxygen discount asphyxiation; because as has been pointed out, he received CPR which changed the oxygen values which would have been measured post mortem. Nobody knows what his oxygen levels were when he died

It is known, however, that a big fella was kneeling on his neck and George Floyd said “I can’t breath”. As a lay person, I find this ready set of circumstances quite convincing as to cause of death. In lay terms you might call it “The Bleedin’ Obvious”

[Torquetalk]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Unanimous, and of course there's that "beyond a reasonable doubt" aspect - not the "preponderance of the evidence". It's intentionally difficult to get a guilty verdict - the philosophy being 'better to let 100 guilty people go then to convict one innocent'.

A hung jury is my prediction - which won't result in as widespread rioting as 'not guilty', but there will still be widespread rioting...

Thanks td. A high bar indeed,

[Haraka]

It is known, however, that a big fella was kneeling on his neck

Who at 140lb,was a fraction of the weight of George Floyd