Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

MeMen2_MoRi_

Penn wrote: »

What surprises me is that all Dr.Fowler did is try to cause reasonable doubt, by offering alternative reasons why Floyd may have died in ways that exculpate Chauvin. Yet he had no actual definitive proof of same, simply theories. Which in fairness, that's his role as a witness for the defence, to try cast reasonable doubt. But why his testimony should be considered as expert testimony whereas the witnesses for the prosecution should be considered "expert" testimony with aspertions cast on some of them regarding future book deals or just simply being charming and Irish and therefore influencing the jury in that manner, all of that is beyond me.

When I listened to him opening up the case for fumes from the car for reasonable doubt, I was fully on board with the potential of that being a factor, then under cross his reasonable doubt fell a part and it didn't even take much..

Yet we'll hear the never ending reference to Fowler saying it should be X on the autopsy. This from a guy who is being sued for explaining away the death of a 19 year old as an accident who was handcuffed and lay under the weight of cops for a period of time.

Here you have a case of a young and healthy late teen, handcuffed behind their back and their respiratory system put under the stress of having heavy weight placed on top of it and dying.. In Fowler's opinion it's an Accident.

Like I said when I found this out, his evidence should be viewed from the prism of "full of sh!t" for explaining away deaths by restraint from cops.

penny piper

Penn wrote: »

What surprises me is that all Dr.Fowler did is try to cause reasonable doubt, by offering alternative reasons why Floyd may have died in ways that exculpate Chauvin. Yet he had no actual definitive proof of same, simply theories. Which in fairness, that's his role as a witness for the defence, to try cast reasonable doubt. But why his testimony should be considered as expert testimony whereas the witnesses for the prosecution should be considered "expert" testimony with aspertions cast on some of them regarding future book deals or just simply being charming and Irish and therefore influencing the jury in that manner, all of that is beyond me.

I actually removed those " " ......I think there's some misconception here...all I ever stated that I found that there were too many medical experts and could be confusing for a jury....and yes Dr.Tobin was an expert in his field as were all the others. I have no problem with what ever I post ....if someone like yourself doesn't agree it's fine..... I find everyone's imput very interesting ..

MeMen2_MoRi_

penny piper wrote: »

No, I hadn't noticed that all.... I see alot posters mentioning the irish expert dr.tobin that's all ...very few mentions of dr.fowler...
Don't you think yourself in your opinion dr.baker was not important?

Did anyone know of Tobin before hand, why would anyone be mentioning him before hearing his expert opinion..

Dr Baker is important, his findings are his findings, and they are open to be disputed in a court of law. You specifically referenced Dr Baker many times, for forming your opinion, now you reference Fowler.. I'm wondering why

MeMen2_MoRi_

penny piper wrote: »

I actually removed those " " ......I think there's some misconception here...all I ever stated that I found that there were too many medical experts and could be confusing for a jury....and yes Dr.Tobin was an expert in his field as were all the others. I have no problem with what ever I post ....if someone like yourself doesn't agree it's fine..... I find everyone's imput very interesting ..

There is zero misconception around the " "

You were called on it, you removed them.. it doesn't take away from what you let slip of your thoughts of the states experts.

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

When I listened to him opening up the case for fumes from the car for reasonable doubt, I was fully on board with the potential of that being a factor, then under cross his reasonable doubt fell a part and it didn't even take much..

Yet we'll hear the never ending reference to Fowler saying it should be X on the autopsy. This from a guy who is being sued for explaining away the death of a 19 year old as an accident who was handcuffed and lay under the weight of cops for a period of time.

Here you have a case of a young and healthy late teen, handcuffed behind their back and their respiratory system put under the stress of having heavy weight placed on top of it and dying.. In Fowler's opinion it's an Accident.

Like I said when I found this out, his evidence should be viewed from the prism of "full of sh!t" for explaining away deaths by restraint from cops.

That's another case about police brutality to black people isn't it??? wasn't the police/maryland medical office/ along with dr.fowler sued?? atleast 14 other people..

Whether you like the guy or not he's got an incredible cv behind him...and was there to give an opinion for the defense....he actually got people thinking...

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Did anyone know of Tobin before hand, why would anyone be mentioning him before hearing his expert opinion..

Dr Baker is important, his findings are his findings, and they are open to be disputed in a court of law. You specifically referenced Dr Baker many times, for forming your opinion, now you reference Fowler.. I'm wondering why

Do you ever read anyone else's posts on here or just a limited few?

Ofcourse, I mentioned dr.baker before...as far as I'm concerned he is the most important expert there.... I'm also referencing dr.fowler because he came later in the case for the defense and I think he also did a very good job...

You have no need to wonder why because I've just explained....he did a good job...made people/jury think .....

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

There is zero misconception around the " "

You were called on it, you removed them.. it doesn't take away from what you let slip of your thoughts of the states experts.

As you are a pyschic what were my "slip of thoughts of the states experts"?

MeMen2_MoRi_

penny piper wrote: »

That's another case about police brutality to black people isn't it??? wasn't the police/maryland medical office/ along with dr.fowler sued?? atleast 14 other people..

Whether you like the guy or not he's got an incredible cv behind him...and was there to give an opinion for the defense....he actually got people thinking...

From this post onwards, will this be the last time we hear about George Floyd's past from you/others. It has zero impact on this case.

I agree what is going on with Fowler and that case should have zero bases for the jurors hearing his testimony. Like I think the same for George Floyd's past.. yet......

This thread has seen BLM/his violent past/his attempt to escape arrest by overdosing himself... Yet none of it has been presented in this case.. there was an attempt about the BLM stuff and the judge rightfully kicked that to the kerb.. it has no bearing on this case.

MeMen2_MoRi_

penny piper wrote: »

As you are a pyschic what were my "slip of thoughts of the states experts"?

" "

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

From this post onwards, will this be the last time we hear about George Floyd's past from you/others. It has zero impact on this case.

I agree what is going on with Fowler and that case should have zero bases for the jurors hearing his testimony..

I never make promises I can't keep and I certainly can't post for others.

MeMen2_MoRi_

penny piper wrote: »

Do you ever read anyone else's posts on here or just a limited few?

Ofcourse, I mentioned dr.baker before...as far as I'm concerned he is the most important expert there.... I'm also referencing dr.fowler because he came later in the case for the defense and I think he also did a very good job...

You have no need to wonder why because I've just explained....he did a good job...made people/jury think .....

You ain't that special penny. You have your thoughts of things, for me a bit skewed and to outright lies to back up your views.

If he's the most important, why aren't you referencing his testimony, you've jumped ship to a guy that doesn't have the same opinion as Baker (homicide).

BattleCorp

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

From this post onwards, will this be the last time we hear about George Floyd's past from you/others. It has zero impact on this case.

I beg to differ.

Video footage of a previous arrest also shows Floyd calling for his mama and saying he can't breathe (again he said this when nobody was on top of him just like he did before he was put on the ground shortly before he died). So that bit of history might be relevant.

His medical history/drug taking may also be relevant and they may have contributed to his death, so no, it probably won't be the last time you hear them mentioned.

MeMen2_MoRi_

BattleCorp wrote: »

I beg to differ.

Video footage of a previous arrest also shows Floyd calling for his mama and saying he can't breathe (again he said this when nobody was on top of him just like he did before he was put on the ground shortly before he died). So that bit of history might be relevant.

His medical history/drug taking may also be relevant and they may have contributed to his death, so no, it probably won't be the last time you hear them mentioned.

Question...

Was it brought up in the trial by the defence?

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

You ain't that special penny. You have your thoughts of things, for me a bit skewed and to outright lies to back up your views.

If he's the most important, why aren't you referencing his testimony, you've jumped ship to a guy that doesn't have the same opinion as Baker (homicide).

lol .....You have to gather information from all experts....and make your decision... I can't keep referencing baker's testimony...when I see some of fowler's testimony makes sense as well.....and since listening to fowler...not regarding the carbon monoxide theory....I believe the death should have been listed as undetermined... not homicide ...it's all irrelevant because it is homicide but that's just what i think...

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Question...

Was it brought up in the trial by the defence?

Yes it was

MeMen2_MoRi_

penny piper wrote: »

lol .....You have to gather information from all experts....and make your decision... I can't keep referencing baker's testimony...when I see some of fowler's testimony makes sense as well.....and since listening to fowler...not regarding the carbon monoxide theory....I believe the death should have been listed as undetermined... not homicide ...it's all irrelevant because it is homicide but that's just what i think...

If juries were made up of 6 jurors... You heard 5 jurors say cause of death was homicide and 1 said undetermined...

You'll go with that 1 person.... Makes sense in pennies head.. strange goings on there.

BattleCorp

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Question...

Was it brought up in the trial by the defence?

I didn't watch the trial so I'm not sure if it was brought up by the prosecution or the defence, but the video of his previous arrest was certainly shown to the jury.

His previous medical condition was certainly brought up by the defence.

MeMen2_MoRi_

penny piper wrote: »

Yes it was

What witness.. need to view it

MeMen2_MoRi_

BattleCorp wrote: »

I didn't watch the trial so I'm not sure if it was brought up by the prosecution or the defence, but the video of his previous arrest was certainly shown to the jury.

His previous medical condition was certainly brought up by the defence.

No qualms about medical history, very much part of the case

MeMen2_MoRi_

For people who view chauvins actions on the day in the minor sense..

Is it not pretty telling that the defence brought a use of force and a pathologist as their witnesses..

Their was no pulmonologist, no heart experts brought forward.. The defence are looking to do the least amount of work to create reasonable doubt.. The defence is looking to create reasonable doubt off of the states witnesses.. (I know it's not on them to prove thing's, but if they could they didn't)

Like on Fowler's case for reasonable doubt, he did the sum of zero homework for it. He was a fish out of water when under cross by the state. Just by his body language, to me it screamed I'm uncomfortable leave me alone. Yet under defence questioning, he looked calm assured I'd go as far as cocky.

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

For people who view chauvins actions on the day in the minor sense..

Is it not pretty telling that the defence brought a use of force and a pathologist as their witnesses..

Their was no pulmonologist, no heart experts brought forward.. The defence are looking to do the least amount of work to create reasonable doubt.. The defence is looking to create reasonable doubt off of the states witnesses.. (I know it's not on them to prove thing's, but if they could they didn't)

Like on Fowler's case for reasonable doubt, he did the sum of zero homework for it. He was a fish out of water when under cross by the state. Just by his body language, to me it screamed I'm uncomfortable leave me alone. Yet under defence questioning, he looked calm assured I'd go as far as cocky.

The defense wouldn't have all the resourses available like the state.
They only need to create reasonable doubt.
I will agree that some of the defense's witnesses that they used weren't the best and that Eric Nelson was pretty bad when it came to asking any of the prosecutor's medical experts questions.

I don't think Dr.Fowler came across at all like "fish out of water when under cross examination from the state".
I'd agree he "looked calm" but certainly not "cocky".

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

If juries were made up of 6 jurors... You heard 5 jurors say cause of death was homicide and 1 said undetermined...

You'll go with that 1 person.... Makes sense in pennies head.. strange goings on there.

No, with what I've always posted I believe there is reasonable doubt...
Do you still think there is reasonable doubt or have you changed your mind again?
I think chauvan will get second degree manslaughter though.

silverharp

Im sure he will be found guilty of something but the defense will or ought to sum up along the lines of the jury needing to be certain of chauvin's inner thoughts which by definition is not a rational thing to do in this case

Mellor

Biker79 wrote: »

It amounts to reasonable doubt.

I've asked this previous, and you dodge the question. So fully expecting the same.

Reasonable doubt of what?

You keeping throwing out the phrase of reasonable doubt, it has to be on relation to some aspect of evidence or the case. Not simply a general doubt.

penny piper wrote: »

I agree.

I have another question....if the medical examiner had put "undetermined" (like Dr.Fowler indicated) would Chauvan have ever faced charges of anything? just out of curiousity

Yes, without question he would have. A medical examiner can't make judgements.

A question for you, Why do ou hold Fowlers opinion in such high regard?
Did he see the body, or examine it? If not why is his opinion vlaid.
Also was he paid by the defense? Surely that undermines his neutrality.

silverharp wrote: »

Im sure he will be found guilty of something but the defense will or ought to sum up along the lines of the jury needing to be certain of chauvin's inner thoughts which by definition is not a rational thing to do in this case

They may bring that up. Which charges do you think that is valid in relation so?

Mellor

Penn wrote: »

Yet he had no actual definitive proof of same, simply theories. Which in fairness, that's his role as a witness for the defence, to try cast reasonable doubt.

Just to clarify, his role is to offer expert testimony back up by evidence.
It's absolutely not his role to come up with theory on a whim.


Somebody mentioned that the car was a hybrid. If that's true, there's absolutely nothing expert about his opinion.

penny piper

Mellor wrote: »

Reasonable doubt of what?

hmm isn't there the possibility the defense team could point to any of these.

1. There was no injuries to mr.floyd's neck.Surely, the defense could use that
as proof there were no excessive force used to restrain Mr.Floyd? you could
use that this was not the primary contributor to his death.


2. The claim that Mr.Chauvan had a duty to render aid to Mr.Floyd, you could
argue that as he was not alone and other officers present he was not alone
in having that responsibility. He was also only assisting in that arrest.
He was not the arresting officer.

3. Mr.Chauvan was not aware of Mr.Floyd's medical condition or of the drugs
he had been taking. It would be very hard to say what he might have done
in such a case other than to wait for an ambulance which they were doing.

penny piper

Mellor wrote: »

A question for you, Why do ou hold Fowlers opinion in such high regard?
Did he see the body, or examine it? If not why is his opinion vlaid.
Also was he paid by the defense? Surely that undermines his neutrality.

I quite simply found him very interesting/some of his points / far easier to listen to than Dr.Tobin, that doesn't mean to say I didn't listen to all the experts. Maybe, I find it more interesting listening to a forensic pathologist than a pulmonologist idk..

No he didn't see the body...neither did dr.tobin/dr.whoever/the cardiologist/the toxiologist/ ...only the hannepin medical examiner dr.baker who I have pointed out this before in a previous post.
I should also add Tobin was not challenged by Nelson enough due to his lack of obvious medical knowledge...it came across very weak ..Fowler was challenged plenty by the prosecution and gave doubt on certain issues.
Look dr.tobin and I think dr.thomas didn't get paid....wasn't it dr.tobins first criminal case to testify at???? and look how many times the prosecutor showed his books....they all get paid in one way or another...after this case is over I'm sure they will both be in big demand re tv/book etc

A question back to you.....why do you think Dr.Fowler shouldn't be held in any less regard than any of the other experts???

silverharp

Mellor wrote: »

They may bring that up. Which charges do you think that is valid in relation so?

anything murdery , a rational person wouldnt try to kill someone with people, colleagues and cameras watching on, at the time you would have to assume Chauvin thought he was doing a bang up job.

Penn

silverharp wrote: »

anything murdery , a rational person wouldnt try to kill someone with people, colleagues and cameras watching on, at the time you would have to assume Chauvin thought he was doing a bang up job.

But there are legally different degrees of murder charges which don't accuse the defendant of trying to kill someone. The murder charges Chauvin is facing relates to:

The first charge is of second-degree unintentional murder, which means the person was killed without prior intent to kill while inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm on the victim.

The second charge is second-degree manslaughter, which is when a person knowingly or consciously takes a risk that results in the death of a person.

He is also facing a third-degree murder charge, which is killing someone without intent by carrying out an act dangerous to others due to "a depraved mind" and without regard for human life.

Chauvin purposefully and intentionally kept Floyd restrained in a dangerous manner for an extended period of time even after Floyd had lost consciousness. He may not have intended to kill him (regardless if there were people watching or not), but he intentionally stayed in that position which most of the experts agreed caused Floyd's death, and which the police experts who testified said was not the correct thing to do especially for that period of time.

It's why I'm leaning towards the result being the manslaughter charge, because I don't know if the prosecutors have proven that Chauvin was intentionally acting dangerously to inflict harm to Floyd, but at the same time I can see why the murder charges were brought, because Chauvin's actions, imo, could be seen to fit those descriptors of the charges.

silverharp

Penn wrote: »

But there are legally different degrees of murder charges which don't accuse the defendant of trying to kill someone. The murder charges Chauvin is facing relates to:



Chauvin purposefully and intentionally kept Floyd restrained in a dangerous manner for an extended period of time even after Floyd had lost consciousness. He may not have intended to kill him (regardless if there were people watching or not), but he intentionally stayed in that position which most of the experts agreed caused Floyd's death, and which the police experts who testified said was not the correct thing to do especially for that period of time.

It's why I'm leaning towards the result being the manslaughter charge, because I don't know if the prosecutors have proven that Chauvin was intentionally acting dangerously to inflict harm to Floyd, but at the same time I can see why the murder charges were brought, because Chauvin's actions, imo, could be seen to fit those descriptors of the charges.

"depraved mind" depends on mind reading, the way the law is written it's X, "and" and "and", if one condition is missing it all falls down