Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

penny piper · 15-04-2021 08:26AM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

This post is some distortion of the actual truth.

Did you understand what Dr Tobin was talking about? Have you understood all the experts testimonies..

Ofcourse, I didn't :rolleyes: did you? did every jury member ? I'm not a pulmonologist are you?

Look he's irish....he can tell a story come across charasmatic like most of us Irish can...
that's why people were so engaged I highly doubt the lenght of time he was sat there most people understood everything he went into ....he likes talking about his subject...all the book publicity by the state... he may not have got paid but he'll make up for it I'm sure....

I found Dr.Fowler even if I didn't agree with all he said/assumptions I found him far more interesting/clear to listen to....maybe I find forensic pathologists more interesting idk....

Dr.Fowler is just as eminent but a different

Biker79 · 15-04-2021 08:28AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Except there's no proof an overdose killed him... The fact the defence are doing such a shoddy job indicates they don't have a leg to stand on tbh.

They don't need or have to prove it.

They just need to show the extraordinary amount of mitigating circumstances that will allow for reasonable doubt.

penny piper · 15-04-2021 08:28AM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

On fowler being clear and no nonsense..

I give fair dues for the attempt of casting carbon monoxide as potential factor that was over looked, yet he clearly didn't believe it, why? Because if you believe something, you'd do research like actual psychical research instead of sitting at a computer pulling up things that take seconds to find. Like the Ford explorer interceptor, it's a hybrid which I'm guessing when In park shuts off the engine after a time of sitting idle..

That's a lot of nonsense to which he was paid handsomely for to talk about.

I'm sure likewise Dr.Tobin with all his free book publicity from the state/all tv appearances/ he won't do too bad either ...they are all doing what they are told to bring up by the state/defense ...play this up...play that down....they all have an agenda ....

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 15-04-2021 08:44AM

penny piper wrote: »

Ofcourse, I didn't :rolleyes: did you? did every jury ? I'm not a pulmonologist are you?

Look he's irish....he can tell a story come across charasmatic like most of us Irish can...
that's why people were so engaged I highly doubt the lenght of time he was sat there most people understood everything he went into ....he likes talking about his subject...all the book publicity by the state... he may not have got paid but he'll make up for it I'm sure....

I found Dr.Fowler even if I didn't agree with all he said/assumptions I found him far more interesting/clear to listen to....maybe I find forensic pathologists more interesting idk....

Dr.Fowler is just as eminent but a different

When experts speak at trials nobody can understand what they're saying because the jurors/public aren't experts in those fields?

You may not understand what Tobin was speaking, but if you played along with touching certain parts that he was suggesting, you would and the jurors did play along which increases their understanding of things.

The worse expert I found to follow was the toxicologist, I made up what I didn't understand there with other witnesses because they spoke in laymen's terms like, if you're going to die from a fentanyl overdose you go into a coma and can't be got back from that. George didn't go into a coma, right?

I maybe wrong, what I'm reading from you is you disagree with the experts and are flat out lying about what they said.

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 15-04-2021 08:49AM

penny piper wrote: »

I'm sure likewise Dr.Tobin with all his free book publicity from the state/all tv appearances/ he won't do too bad either ...they are all doing what they are told to bring up by the state/defense ...play this up...play that down....they all have an agenda ....

Some have put the work in, others pulled websites up printed pages and then told a pack of ifs buts and maybes and hypotheticals with zero actual research...

You agree with that?

penny piper · 15-04-2021 09:40AM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Some have put the work in, others pulled websites up printed pages and then told a pack of ifs buts and maybes and hypotheticals with zero actual research...

You agree with that?

What I was saying you can have as many experts as you like.
Each one will only know about their particular subject.
Each one will be informed by the prosecution/ defense when giving their testimony what they will ask.....and what probably to expect from the other side.
(and because they are experts that should be easy to handle].

I didn't really say I didn't understand mr.tobin I used sarcasm? .... I just found the lenght of time he was allowed to (akin to a lecture) speak he was becoming boring and I doubt whilst he is so engrossed in his subject most jury members would turn off.. and Nelson was clearly unable to challenge him because of his lack of medical knowledge.../not as simplistic/interesting as Mr.Fowler. Maybe because Fowler was asked more/challenged more and not allowed to go on and on. It's only my opinion I know majority will not agree with me ...

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 15-04-2021 10:10AM

penny piper wrote: »

What I was saying you can have as many experts as you like.
Each one will only know about their particular subject.
Each one will be informed by the prosecution/ defense when giving their testimony what they will ask.....and what probably to expect from the other side.
(and because they are experts that should be easy to handle].

I didn't really say I didn't understand mr.tobin I used sarcasm? .... I just found the lenght of time he was allowed to (akin to a lecture) speak he was becoming boring and I doubt whilst he is so engrossed in his subject most jury members would turn off.. and Nelson was clearly unable to challenge him because of his lack of medical knowledge.../not as simplistic/interesting as Mr.Fowler. Maybe because Fowler was asked more/challenged more and not allowed to go on and on. It's only my opinion I know majority will not agree with me ...

Apologises, you're using sarcasm for yourself while thinking others can't follow along? :cool:

The stuff you're are complaining about, it goes on from both sides, right? Fowler under questioning from defence was allowed to speak freely.. Tobin when being questioned by defence wouldn't be allowed to speak freely, he'd be limited to more or less yes/no answers?

15-04-2021 10:18AM

Biker79 wrote: »

They don't need or have to prove it.

They just need to show the extraordinary amount of mitigating circumstances that will allow for reasonable doubt.

They do need to make it seem plausible as a possibility but they realistically haven't.

Mellor · 15-04-2021 10:52AM

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

My bad, I missed that bit when transcribing. Saying "that's pretty high" still doesn't mean that he said that it killed him though.

I think you’ve misunderstood. I’m saying that the correct quote is even less of a statement on it being the cause.

I don't think that them not mentioning the units and just saying 11 makes any difference here. They all had the toxicology report available and obviously knew what they're talking about. I'd compare it to my presentations at work when I have people sitting around the table and each one of them has the same document available and I'm talking them through it page by page, I'd say "Engagement rate this month was 17", and they'll know that I'm talking about 17%, because they are reading it on the paper in front of them. So I don't really understand why you'd bring it up. If I'm missing anything, please let me know.

A percent rate is equivalent as there’s no other units for percent. Where’s blood tests can come in multiple scales.
11 is not a fatal dose, based on the above is the low end of a medical anaesthesia dose. Maybe he just meant high for a self-administered dose.
My point is that none of that suggests he was saying it was fatal.

Mellor · 15-04-2021 10:58AM

penny piper wrote: »

I just found the lenght of time he was allowed to (akin to a lecture) speak he was becoming boring and I doubt whilst he is so engrossed in his subject most jury members would turn off.. and Nelson was clearly unable to challenge him because of his lack of medical knowledge.../not as simplistic/interesting as Mr.Fowler.

What bearing has finding somebody boring and another simplistic have on the case. Ie Guilt or innocence?

Mellor · 15-04-2021 11:14AM

Biker79 wrote: »

He was foaming at the mouth having exited his drug dealers car. Most likely pursuing a strategy of overdosing to sabotage an arrest, as he had done the previous year.

Surely that will contribute to reasonable doubt?

Biker79 wrote: »

They just need to show the extraordinary amount of mitigating circumstances that will allow for reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt of what exactly? Serious question.

Sean’s to be the latest buzzword wheeling out by those defending Chauvin. Reasonable doubt isn’t a magic get out of jail free card. The doubt has to be applicable to the charges laid out in court.

For example, it was suggested that Chauvin was distracted. I don’t believe he was, but even if he was it would rude doubt about the charges as he’s not accused of intentional homicide. Distraction is still negligence.

penny piper · 15-04-2021 11:40AM

Mellor wrote: »

What bearing has finding somebody boring and another simplistic have on the case. Ie Guilt or innocence?

You do realise that's how a jury is convinced??? the expert/s who engages the most with the jury....believable/convincing than the rest..you know the one you put your trust in??
Why do you think Dr.Tobin has come across so well??? do you know he if he is more qualified than any of the others???? but he's the one most have accepted to be the best witness.

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 15-04-2021 12:03PM

Fowler testified for 4 hours yesterday.. simple communication

Tobin testified for nearly 3.. boring, lecturing way, fall asleep

Who's going to engage better in that situation.. who likes being in a conversation that you can't understand, follow.. if it was the case as you're describing things I'd rather listen to Fowler, but it's not!

It would be like being at a party and you get stuck with the person that gets all chatty after a few drinks and won't let anyone else speak for more then a few words.. you end up switching off or doing runner to get away from them so you can enjoy your night.

Mellor · 15-04-2021 12:10PM

penny piper wrote: »

You do realise that's how a jury is convinced??? the expert/s who engages the most with the jury....believable/convincing than the rest..you know the one you put your trust in??

But that has no bearing on the truth and facts of what happened. Which is what we’re discussing.
Or are you saying that you think the more simplistic expert is a better angle to get a guilty suspect off on charges? Which is a different discussion. But a valid one.

Why do you think Dr.Tobin has come across so well??? do you know he if he is more qualified than any of the others???? but he's the one most have accepted to be the best witness.

I thought he explained the physical processes very clearly. In addition, he was able to quantify with great accuracy various aspects of the incident.

You can’t really compare qualifications in separate fields. Obviously I think he was more qualified in his field than the others

Billy Mays · 15-04-2021 12:21PM

They should make these expert witnesses testify by tweet

140 characters max answers only

penny piper · 15-04-2021 01:15PM

Mellor wrote: »

But that has no bearing on the truth and facts of what happened. Which is what we’re discussing.
Or are you saying that you think the more simplistic expert is a better angle to get a guilty suspect off on charges? Which is a different discussion. But a valid one.

I thought he explained the physical processes very clearly. In addition, he was able to quantify with great accuracy various aspects of the incident.

You can’t really compare qualifications in separate fields. Obviously I think he was more qualified in his field than the others

I'm saying the more simplistic expert is a better angle..

I haven't ever tried to compare qualifications of different experts...what I have said that having so many medical experts/use of force experts from the state...with all slightly differing takes on things can confuse a jury....

You thought Tobin was more qualified in his field than the others??? why? because Nelson was extremely bad in his defense regarding any medical challenge (questions)to Tobin.....so the testimony for tobin was much easier...
I'm sure if you care to google (which i won't so don't ask me to give links)
Fowler/others all have extremely distinguished/ impressive backgrounds...

penny piper · 15-04-2021 01:20PM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Apologises, you're using sarcasm for yourself while thinking others can't follow along? :cool:

The stuff you're are complaining about, it goes on from both sides, right? Fowler under questioning from defence was allowed to speak freely.. Tobin when being questioned by defence wouldn't be allowed to speak freely, he'd be limited to more or less yes/no answers?

I'm obviously confusing you ........... what I'm basically saying is that because Nelson was so bad at cross-examining (lack of medical knowledge) he couldn't challenge Tobin. Nelson at fault there imo.
The prosecution had accumalated how many questions/facts about Fowler ready to cross examine him...? countless

penny piper · 15-04-2021 01:26PM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Fowler testified for 4 hours yesterday.. simple communication

Tobin testified for nearly 3.. boring, lecturing way, fall asleep

Who's going to engage better in that situation.. who likes being in a conversation that you can't understand, follow.. if it was the case as you're describing things I'd rather listen to Fowler, but it's not!

It would be like being at a party and you get stuck with the person that gets all chatty after a few drinks and won't let anyone else speak for more then a few words.. you end up switching off or doing runner to get away from them so you can enjoy your night.

We definitely have a communication problem....you don't understand me and I don't understand you....:)

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 15-04-2021 01:43PM

penny piper wrote: »

I'm obviously confusing you ........... what I'm basically saying is that because Nelson was so bad at cross-examining (lack of medical knowledge) he couldn't challenge Tobin. Nelson at fault there imo.
The prosecution had accumalated how many questions/facts about Fowler ready to cross examine him...? countless

Translation.. People did their job and you're "crying" about it..

Let me guess, the state shouldn't have that many people working on the case because the other guy only has one/two on his side..

The facts of the case so far are weighted towards the prosecution because the evidence provided from testimony is speaking for itself so far.. I thought you were in the bracket of given chauvin the benefit of the doubt, that means you're open to seeing that chauvin had influence in the death here, you seem to be now plain and simply arguing that he's innocent, he's being thrown under the bus, it's stitch up, he has now a bad defence yet you've tried to paint a picture that he was doing pretty good etc..

I think under the weight of testimony, you see chauvin has a lot of responsibility in this death, you simply can't step across the aisle you'll die on the hill of "it's everything and everyone else's fault".

Mellor · 15-04-2021 02:03PM

penny piper wrote: »

I'm saying the more simplistic expert is a better angle.

Tbh I interest in this case lies in the truth and the law. So I value experts that resonate with that.
I get that the defence have a job to do, which involves putting a spin on things. But I don’t care for it.

I haven't ever tried to compare qualifications of different experts.

You literally just answer me to do that.

You thought Tobin was more qualified in his field than the others??? why? because Nelson was extremely bad in his defense regarding any medical challenge (questions)to Tobin.....so the testimony for tobin was much easier.[/quote]
Nothing to do with the testimony.
Tobin is an expert in pulmonary medicine. The others are not. So yes, he is more of an expert in his field. As I said, it’s quite difficult to compare different fields.
FWIW Fowler’s background is in pediatrics.

flanna01 · 15-04-2021 02:05PM

I assume the Jurors are standard citizens and not medically trained, at least not to the extent of the experts yapping on the stand?

Based on this assumption, I'm guessing they evaluate what they see, and maybe try to understand the more intricate details of how George Floyd expired..

And no matter what way you cook the eggs, the knee to George Floyds neck was critical to his demise.

No ifs or buts.... The kneeling on his neck was what finished him off - As graphically witnessed by numerous by-standers.

The prisoner was handcuffed, he was not resisting, there was two other cops sat on him....

Does any Juror really need further proof as to what occurred on that day? Chauvin is as guilty as sin, and the Jury should do their job and convict him to the maximum degree that the Court will allow...

Forget the legal BS - And do what's right!

penny piper · 15-04-2021 02:09PM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Translation.. People did their job and you're "crying" about it..

Let me guess, the state shouldn't have that many people working on the case because the other guy only has one/two on his side..

The facts of the case so far are weighted towards the prosecution because the evidence provided from testimony is speaking for itself so far.. I thought you were in the bracket of given chauvin the benefit of the doubt, that means you're open to seeing that chauvin had influence in the death here, you seem to be now plain and simply arguing that he's innocent, he's being thrown under the bus, it's stitch up, he has now a bad defence yet you've tried to paint a picture that he was doing pretty good etc..

I think under the weight of testimony, you see chauvin has a lot of responsibility in this death, you simply can't step across the aisle you'll die on the hill of "it's everything and everyone else's fault".

What do you see yourself??? what's your take on chauvan? is he guilty or innocent?did he intend to kill floyd or not????
How many years do you think he will get?

15-04-2021 02:14PM

penny piper wrote: »

What do you see yourself??? what's your take on chauvan? is he guilty or innocent?did he intend to kill floyd or not????
How many years do you think he will get?

I don't believe the majority of people in the thread believe that it was the intent. Third degree murder doesn't require intent. And you should know that at this stage... It seems more like you're trying to muddy the waters.

Mellor · 15-04-2021 02:17PM

penny piper wrote: »

did he intend to kill floyd or not????

Not relevant.

(I don’t believe he did intent to kill him FWIW)

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 15-04-2021 02:19PM

penny piper wrote: »

What do you see yourself??? what's your take on chauvan? is he guilty or innocent?did he intend to kill floyd or not????
How many years do you think he will get?

If I was to use a pendulum in this interaction.. I'm comfortable with being with the cops for talk sake 2 minutes after George is pulled from the car and then put face down (2 mins from here), at this point with each passing moment the pendulum swings to being that the cops are going above and beyond in the use of force needed. Don't need to explain the points were we all see them going overboard.

At the end of things, there was a callous disregard for a person in his custody and under his control.

penny piper · 15-04-2021 03:02PM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

If I was to use a pendulum in this interaction.. I'm comfortable with being with the cops for talk sake 2 minutes after George is pulled from the car and then put face down (2 mins from here), at this point with each passing moment the pendulum swings to being that the cops are going above and beyond in the use of force needed. Don't need to explain the points were we all see them going overboard.

At the end of things, there was a callous disregard for a person in his custody and under his control.

From what I see now in the courtroom it's just a case of how many years he will get.....10/25 years???Tobin is to be brought back for evidence.

penny piper · 15-04-2021 03:05PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It seems more like you're trying to muddy the waters.

I haven't a clue why you should think that...and I was addressing another poster not you.

BattleCorp · 15-04-2021 03:16PM

penny piper wrote: »

From what I see now in the courtroom it's just a case of how many years he will get.....10/25 years???Tobin is to be brought back for evidence.

The defence would only bring back Tobin if they found an angle to chip away at his evidence. It wouldn't make sense to bring him back only for him to reinforce his earlier testimony; testimony that didn't do Chauvin any favours.

15-04-2021 03:17PM

penny piper wrote: »

I haven't a clue why you should think that...and I was addressing another poster not you.

Since none of the charges relate to intentional murder, the fact you're bringing it up is rather irrelevant...

ACitizenErased · 15-04-2021 03:17PM

Did the prosecution not completely feck up? The medical centre didn't include the carbon monoxide levels. If there's any doubt then they'll acquit him.

Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Comments