Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

All_in_Flynn · 13-04-2021 9:31pm

penny piper wrote: »

You believe Chauvan is/will receive a fair trial... I don't ...that's my opinion to which I am entitled likewise you are entitled to yours.. btw I think alot of people on here can't see two sides to a story.. I do accept other people's opinions.... I'm only expressing my opinions.
As a black woman I feel should show some support for mr.chauvan....

You're entitled to a opinion just as must as I am entitled to challenge it. You don't believe he is receiving a fair trial but you're reasons for thinking same are weak at best.

Billy Mays · 13-04-2021 9:34pm

penny piper wrote: »

I actually removed those " " to suit a poster.

Why would you do that?

You put them there for a reason in the first place i.e. because his testimony looked bad for Chauvin you don't actually consider him an expert

Quantum Erasure · 13-04-2021 9:38pm

Overheal wrote: »

Clearly the definition of "superhuman" strength should be re-examined if it is readily accessible by black men in a state of "delerium" - I smoked a lot of the devils lettuce in college, became quite delirious at times and did never once develop super powers. This is why the plant must be regulated, so I have someone to demand a refund from.

https://twitter.com/gartmartin9/status/1382045946473816069?s=20

Was it laced with fentanyl and amphetamines?

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 13-04-2021 9:38pm

Billy Mays wrote: »

Why would you do that?

You put them there for a reason in the first place i.e. because his testimony looked bad for Chauvin you don't actually consider him an expert

Because I said I stopped reading the post when I seen the "expert" in the post.

penny piper · 13-04-2021 9:41pm

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

You're entitled to a opinion just as must as I am entitled to challenge it. You don't believe he is receiving a fair trial but you're reasons for thinking same are weak at best.

I have no problem over anyone challenging what I post ...no I don't believe he will ultimately receive a fair trial.... that's my opinion....you think my reasons are weak... I don't ....that's your opinion.

penny piper · 13-04-2021 9:44pm

Billy Mays wrote: »

Why would you do that?

You put them there for a reason in the first place i.e. because his testimony looked bad for Chauvin you don't actually consider him an expert

Someone didn't like the use....so I removed them ....it's called been considerate.

I didn't say they weren't experts.... I've always said there were too many allowed for the prosecution...that's all

penny piper · 13-04-2021 9:46pm

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Why would you feel you should show support?

I thought you were in favour of removing emotion from things and getting to the evidence in a cool calm way.

Why not? called giving someone the benefit of the doubt until it's proved othewise.

All_in_Flynn · 13-04-2021 9:47pm

penny piper wrote: »

I have no problem over anyone challenging what I post ...no I don't believe he will ultimately receive a fair trial.... that's my opinion....you think my reasons are weak... I don't ....that's your opinion.

Are you watching the trial at present? How do you feel the defences case has begun today?

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 13-04-2021 9:47pm

penny piper wrote: »

Someone didn't like the use....so I removed them ....it's called been considerate.

I didn't say they weren't experts.... I've always said there were too many allowed for the prosecution...that's all

You using the "experts" calls into question their expertise, which is obviously nonsense. You simply don't agree with expert opinions that don't align with your feelings of needing to support chauvin

penny piper · 13-04-2021 9:51pm

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

Are you watching the trial at present? How do you feel the defences case has begun today?

Pretty bad to be honest ...first two were hammered by the prosecution lawyer...
Floyd's gf was no good to either the defense or prosecution.

The guy been used by the defense ...(use of force) came off really well.....until the prosecution guy took over and I think he did a fairly good job.:)

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 13-04-2021 10:31pm

penny piper wrote: »

Why not? called giving someone the benefit of the doubt until it's proved othewise.

You've posted about feelings shouldn't be near this case, the insinuation was that people who argue that george was killed have too much "feelings" in it and aren't thinking clearly.
Yet you feel you should show support and give him the benefit of the doubt like it's a "just because" situation..

After hearing the expert medical testimonies has your benefit of doubt changed?

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 13-04-2021 10:35pm

It wasn't lost on anyone else how old school the defences use of force expert came across?

Mellor · 14-04-2021 5:19am

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd say Piper is more on the side of Chauvin getting a fair trial more than trying to defend Chauvin.

I wouldn’t agree with that based on the changing angle over the course of the thread. The current angle for fairness and mistrial came about after previous defensive arguments where shown to be false.

If most of the jury was made up of people from this thread, he'd be hanged, drawn and quartered by now as most people are convinced of his guilt without seeing all the evidence.

We are not jurors though. My opinion is my opinion based on what I currently know. I’m allow to do my own research, a juror is not.
However I can categorically state that if I were a juror, I would not do my own research or form an opinion at this point. I’d be required to consider all the evidence presented in court and only the evidence in court. That doesn’t apply to this thread. So it’s unfair to treat poster that way, on both sides.

Speaking for myself, that doesn't mean that I am trying to defend Chauvin, I'm just saying that people need to look at a lot more evidence than just 'the knee'.

I agree that you are just trying to consider other factors that may have affect the outcome. And that’s perfectly fine in the thread.
But in order for a juror to consider those other factors you raised, it would have to be presented in court, and a legal basis established. That hasn’t happened. So if you were a juror, and considered those factors, you’d be contributing to an unfair trial. As I said, it applies to both sides.

Mellor · 14-04-2021 5:28am

penny piper wrote: »

I have no problem over anyone challenging what I post ...no I don't believe he will ultimately receive a fair trial.... that's my opinion....you think my reasons are weak... I don't ....that's your opinion.

You are perfectly entitled to have an opinion. Opinions will differ, and it’s silly to challenge them just because they differ. But if the “facts” that back up an opinion are should be false. Then people will challenge it. And the opinion loses a lot of credibility.

penny piper wrote: »

It was previously noted that it was the prosecutions aim to undermine the medical examiner's finding...they didn't want the drug aspect used.

I may have missed it. But where and when was that noted?

penny piper · 14-04-2021 9:05am

Mellor wrote: »

I may have missed it. But where and when was that noted?

I am merely putting my point across/opinion.
I accept that experts will have differing opinions where have I not said that???? what I do think is when you saturate the amount of medical experts (like the prosecution has done in this case) and then medical experts from the defense (as of yet to come) you can confuse the jury.

It's been mentioned in numerous articles (do your own reserch) how the prosecution team were not even in favour of mr.baker even testifying...because of the mention of drug use in his autopsy report ..hence he came down so low in the medical expert list...and that the strategy they were going to introduce was that floyd was a perfectly fit guy/no underlying health conditions that would have contributed to what happened that day.

FYI.... So we get this straight I am in favour of ANYONE getting a fair trial... I have no other angle than that ....I just see Mr.Chauvan will be used as a scapegoat and will also have a much harder sentence given to him if found guilty just to appease a situation that is happening across minneapolis/alot of america at the moment.
I don't see where anyone can justify that this officer will not be used by the very nature of media/black lives movement/riots/intimidation.

You had a situation outside Hennepin County court house with the floyd/wright families (I have every sympathy with them for their losses) but the very idea they are chanting "No Justice No Peace" and Black lives matter...is wrong.
I posted before about a mis trial in this case (I don't believe you can have a fair trial...and I'm sorry just because you come across as some saint....I face reality)
There is civil unrest in minneapolis/ three nights of rioting.. Police chief resigned.even here in ireland you have the press comparing the cases....it's an extraordinary situation...case should be heard elsewhere. I also don't believe for one second that some of this jury will not be influenced by the situation.

bazermc · 14-04-2021 9:41am

My verdict prediction

Manslaughter 2nd degree. Guilty
3rd degree Murder. Guilty
2nd degree Murder. Not guilty.

Mellor · 14-04-2021 10:16am

penny piper wrote: »

It's been mentioned in numerous articles (do your own reserch) how the prosecution team were not even in favour of mr.baker even testifying...because of the mention of drug use in his autopsy report ..hence he came down so low in the medical expert list...and that the strategy they were going to introduce was that floyd was a perfectly fit guy/no underlying health conditions that would have contributed to what happened that day.

I did look myself, couldn’t find anything. The internet is a bit place and there’s lots of news sites reporting on the trial. Do you have a link.

FYI.... So we get this straight I am in favour of ANYONE getting a fair trial... I have no other angle than that ....I just see Mr.Chauvan will be used as a scapegoat and will also have a much harder sentence given to him if found guilty just to appease a situation that is happening across minneapolis/alot of america at the moment.
I don't see where anyone can justify that this officer will not be used by the very nature of media/black lives movement/riots/intimidation.

It’s plausible that his sentence could come under political influence. I haven’t given sentencing any consideration. Nor is it thee ant to his guilt or innocence.
I just think it’s a stretch to insist that the jury are out to make him a scapegoat. That would require a major conspiracy.!
Jury conspiracy usually happens went jurys are formed of biased (bigoted) locals. The jury profile here appears much more credible to me.

penny piper · 14-04-2021 11:57am

Mellor wrote: »

I did look myself, couldn’t find anything. The internet is a bit place and there’s lots of news sites reporting on the trial. Do you have a link.

It’s plausible that his sentence could come under political influence. I haven’t given sentencing any consideration. Nor is it thee ant to his guilt or innocence.
I just think it’s a stretch to insist that the jury are out to make him a scapegoat. That would require a major conspiracy.!
Jury conspiracy usually happens went jurys are formed of biased (bigoted) locals. The jury profile here appears much more credible to me.

I actually can't find the article/artiicles myself at the moment but in saying that they are there. I apologise there.

I also found it strange when Mr.Baker was to be re-elected as Chief medical examiner at Hennepin County Examiner, aprox last june after he performed the autopsy on floyd . The election result was 5 to 2 the two who dissented were a Ms Angela Connelly and Ms.Fernando... who both sited that they didn't agree with mr.baker's autopsy result re: the part that showed that drugs were a contributing factor in mr.floyd's death. Ms.Fanando stated "everyone is watching this case like a hawk"
Regarding experts used by both prosecution/defense everyone knows each expert is well tutored by whoever they represent what to bring up/play down...

In my opinion I can't see how the some of the jury will not be influenced by what is happening in minneapolis. Didn't Nelson the defense lawer actually say to the judge that either 1/2 members of the jury were from the area near/nearby where these riots/protests are taking place??

Initially didn't the prosecution team acutally want all the witnesses not to be seen to protect them like the jury? just to have audio.

Penn · 14-04-2021 11:59am

penny piper wrote: »

I actually can't find the article/artiicles myself at the moment but in saying that they are there. I apologise there.

I also found it strange when Mr.Baker was to be re-elected as Chief medical examiner at Hennepin County Examiner, aprox last june after he performed the autopsy on floyd . The election result was 5 to 2 the two who dissented were a Ms Angela Connelly and Ms.Fernando... who both sited that they didn't agree with mr.baker's autopsy result re: the part that showed that drugs were a contributing factor in mr.floyd's death. Ms.Fanando stated "everyone is watching this case like a hawk"
Regarding experts used by both prosecution/defense everyone knows each expert is well tutored by whoever they represent what to bring up/play down...

In my opinion I can't see how the some of the jury will not be influenced by what is happening in minneapolis. Didn't Nelson the defense lawer actually say to the judge that either 1/2 members of the jury were from the area near/nearby where these riots/protests are taking place??

Initially didn't the prosecution team acutally want all the witnesses not to be seen to protect them like the jury? just to have audio.

Sorry, but you really should be providing some sort of links or actual quotes to some of these claims you're making.

Gwen Cooper · 14-04-2021 4:42pm

penny piper wrote: »

I actually can't find the article/artiicles myself at the moment but in saying that they are there. I apologise there.

I also found it strange when Mr.Baker was to be re-elected as Chief medical examiner at Hennepin County Examiner, aprox last june after he performed the autopsy on floyd . The election result was 5 to 2 the two who dissented were a Ms Angela Connelly and Ms.Fernando... who both sited that they didn't agree with mr.baker's autopsy result re: the part that showed that drugs were a contributing factor in mr.floyd's death.

Question for you - I've seen multiple people all over the internet mentioning that Dr. Baker initially reported that drug use contributed to Floyd's death. I tried, quite extensively, to fact check this, but had no luck.

I've read the autopsy report by Dr. Baker along with the toxicology report (can be found here ).

George Floyd died on the 25th of May in the evening, the autopsy took place on the 26th of May in the morning. Toxicology report (as usual) took a few days, and was issued on the 31st of May in the evening, so until then they wouldn't really be able to say for sure what kind of drugs he had in his system or how much.

That evening he had a conference call with Hennepin County Attorney to discuss the toxicology results. On this call Baker said "Fentanyl 11, that’s pretty high. This level of fentanyl can cause pulmonary edema. Mr. Floyd’s lungs were 2-3x their normal weight at autopsy. That is fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances." (Document available here) Is that what everyone's referring to? Note that he never said that it's what actually killed him, the "under normal circumstances" bit is important there.

The very next morning after receiving the toxicology report, Baker said in a meeting in relation to the drugs "I am not saying this killed him." He also said that if he was simply found dead at home and there were no other factors present, he'd assume that it was an overdose based on the level of drugs in his system, but made clear right after that it's not what killed him here. (Document here)

So from what I can see, Baker never really said that the drugs contributed to his death that day. It just looks to me that some people are just really grasping at straws and misinterpreting what was actually said. Maybe they're not even aware of doing it, could be just a case of confirmation bias. But anyway, if you have any other reports handy that would show that Baker did initially said that the drugs contributed to Floyd's death, please point me to them.

BattleCorp · 14-04-2021 4:50pm

Sky News have an interesting portrayal of the medical professionals who have given evidence for the prosecution.

Sky News: Prosecution case saw former police colleagues, world-leading medics and witnesses all testify against Chauvin

I'm not doubting the credentials of the medical professionals who gave evidence so far but "world-leading"?

https://news.sky.com/story/george-floyd-killing-the-trial-of-derek-chauvin-live-defence-case-begins-12274284

It'll be interesting to see how they portray the medical professionals who give evidence for the defence. I'm guessing they'll be portrayed as akin to Dr. Nick from the Simpsons.

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 14-04-2021 4:51pm

https://wtop.com/maryland/2021/04/marylands-former-chief-medical-examiner-subject-of-lawsuit-to-testify-in-chauvins-defense/

Maryland’s former chief medical examiner testified for the defense in the Minneapolis murder trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin, who is charged with killing George Floyd. Dr. David Fowler’s testimony comes at the same time he’s being accused of helping to cover up the police’s role in the 2018 in-custody death of Anton Black, a Black 19-year-old from the Eastern Shore.

This should be fun..

cheezums · 14-04-2021 5:07pm

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

https://wtop.com/maryland/2021/04/marylands-former-chief-medical-examiner-subject-of-lawsuit-to-testify-in-chauvins-defense/

Maryland’s former chief medical examiner testified for the defense in the Minneapolis murder trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin, who is charged with killing George Floyd. Dr. David Fowler’s testimony comes at the same time he’s being accused of helping to cover up the police’s role in the 2018 in-custody death of Anton Black, a Black 19-year-old from the Eastern Shore.

This should be fun..

interesting. not sure prosecution would be able to bring that up though? completely different case.

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 14-04-2021 5:11pm

cheezums wrote: »

interesting. not sure prosecution would be able to bring that up though? completely different case.

No, just how the testimony will be given bring things into even more shall we say "full of sh!t". I'm sure the prosecution will be ready to counter the sh!t that is spoken.

cheezums · 14-04-2021 5:24pm

this carbon monoxide angle is going to be hilarious if the prosecution has clear proof the engine was off.

BattleCorp · 14-04-2021 5:26pm

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

No, just how the testimony will be given bring things into even more shall we say "full of sh!t". I'm sure the prosecution will be ready to counter the sh!t that is spoken.

So, anything spoken by people testifying for the prosecution is fine but any testimony given by the defence will be "full of sh!t". Riiiiiight. And how do you know that it will be "full of sh!t"? Are you psychic?

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 14-04-2021 5:34pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

So, anything spoken by people testifying for the prosecution is fine but any testimony given by the defence will be "full of sh!t". Riiiiiight. And how do you know that it will be "full of sh!t"? Are you psychic?

Why you throwing words into my mouth..

I'd question this guy's testimony when I consider the fact I've read that article.

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 14-04-2021 5:36pm

cheezums wrote: »

this carbon monoxide angle is going to be hilarious if the prosecution has clear proof the engine was off.

It's an interesting angle though.. he's not saying it killed him, it's possibly a contributing factor that has not been spoken/tested for..

penny piper · 14-04-2021 5:42pm

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

https://wtop.com/maryland/2021/04/marylands-former-chief-medical-examiner-subject-of-lawsuit-to-testify-in-chauvins-defense/

Maryland’s former chief medical examiner testified for the defense in the Minneapolis murder trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin, who is charged with killing George Floyd. Dr. David Fowler’s testimony comes at the same time he’s being accused of helping to cover up the police’s role in the 2018 in-custody death of Anton Black, a Black 19-year-old from the Eastern Shore.

This should be fun..

Oh yes..he was accused/maryland medical examiners office/police about a cover up of that anton blacks autopsy result.

asked about mr.fowler taking part in the in chauvan's trial...their lawyer basically said they didn't find mr.fowler a credible witness by any stretch of the imagination because he's consistant in his autopsy results where he wants to demonize and criminalize black people.
wtop news (whatever that is)

penny piper · 14-04-2021 5:46pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

So, anything spoken by people testifying for the prosecution is fine but any testimony given by the defence will be "full of sh!t". Riiiiiight. And how do you know that it will be "full of sh!t"? Are you psychic?

I actually find Mr.fowler very interesting to listen to...he's very clear and concise in his answers ... I presume this is the guy the prosecution want to impeach..?

Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Comments