George Floyd death / Derek Chauvin trial - Sidebar week 3

[wasnt_me]

It has been stated by Dr Baker that the stomach contents were not sent for toxicological analysis.

I don't have the time stamps to hand, but I will add them

This point was also raised by Mr Nelson, in his questioning of Dr Fowler today.

I will take your word for it. So the contents were fully examined, and no partially digested pills were found. Correct?

Unless, as I keep asking, there's any way for any drug in the stomach to have any affect on the body before entering the bloodstream, I don't see the need for a toxicology on the stomach. Some others may disagree, but for the record, the contents were FULLY examined, yes? There just wasn't this additional test ordered?

And did they say the reason they didn't feel they needed this additional test? Is it because unabsorbed drugs do not have an affect on the body?

 

[Algo214]

Guys, I don't think any of the last few posts would make any difference in this case.
AFAIK and FWIW, GF was only found to have ingested/swallowed/dissolved in the mouth 1 pill (correct me if I'm wrong, since this was actually part of today's discussion on Court) and I'd be really hard-pressed to reasonably believe that fragments of 1 pill would be a deal breaker in regards to cause of death.

But in any case continue, it's otherwise an interesting topic, albeit a bit OT imo.

 

[MadMcGoo]

Okay, You're talking faster absorption into the blood stream, which is picked up by toxicology. I'm confused by why pills that have not been absorbed into the bloodstream matter -- pills that aren't even present in his stomach.

Thank you. I did not know that this method would make the drug immediately detectable in the blood stream.

 

[Wild Rose]

Regardless of verdict IMO, many people are going to experience compounded fear of the police during interactions. Fear sets off the flight or fight reaction which is an instinctual reaction of our nervous systems. Many people, both regular citizens and our LE, will be dealing with the after effects from witnessing this event as it happened to George Floyd IMO and that is so awful to think about.

 

[CrimeAway]

I will take your word for it. So the contents were fully examined, and no partially digested pills were found. Correct?

Unless, as I keep asking, there's any way for any drug in the stomach to have any affect on the body before entering the bloodstream, I don't see the need for a toxicology on the stomach. Some others may, but if the drugs must be absorbed into the bloodstream to take effect, I don't see the point of ordering an additional test.

But for the record, the contents were FULLY examined, yes? There just wasn't this additional test ordered?

They were VISUALLY examined only.

IMO, there could have been drugs present that could not be seen with the naked eye, but would be found on toxicological analysis. For some reason the state did not submit the stomach contents. Apparently, (per Nelson today), the state keeps autopsy samples, yet the stomach contents have still not been sent for toxicological analysis.

Will try to find link (MOO)

 

[wasnt_me]

Thank you. I did not know that this method would make the drug immediately detectable in the blood stream.

This is what I don't understand and no one is really speaking to here. When we take drugs, the drugs are put into our bloodstream in order to work. Is there some other way that they can work without being in the bloodstream?

No one is saying yes or no to that.

There are ways to get a drug to work faster. Shoot in your vein. Snort it. And possibly lay it between your cheek and tongue or gums like dip. You can also put it up your private parts. When they are swallowed, they have to be aborbed through the stomach lining to have an effect.

I have read that drugs that are in your stomach, not absorbed yet, do not have an effect on you. If that's wrong, I'd like someone to say so.

 

[MadMcGoo]

I’m becoming a little confused at this point TBH.

Today’s testimony created some reasonable doubt for me. I’ll leave it at that and return to the Unidentified forum.

Peace and Love! Be kind to one another.

 

[wasnt_me]

They were VISUALLY examined only.

IMO, there could have been drugs present that could not be seen with the naked eye, but would be found on toxicological analysis. For some reason the state did not submit the stomach contents. Apparently, (per Nelson today), the state keeps autopsy samples, yet the stomach contents have still not been sent for toxicological analysis.

Will try to find link (MOO)

I trust you. I don't need a link. You're welcome to add it though.

I just want to know to what end about these possible drugs in the stomach. If the drug was there but not absorbed into the blood stream, why does it matter?

If drugs in the stomach have no effect because they haven't been absorbed, then I consider the autospy sufficient. But I just need to know how unabsorbed drug can affect a person.

 

[wasnt_me]

I’m becoming a little confused at this point TBH.

Today’s testimony created some reasonable doubt for me. I’ll leave it at that and return to the Unidentified forum.

Peace and Love! Be kind to one another.

That's what the defense wants. Confusion about irrelevant things like drugs that are not in the bloodstream. Have fun! I'm out, too.

 

[turaj]

That's what the defense wants. Confusion about irrelevant things like drugs that are not in the bloodstream. Have fun! I'm out, too.

Comments about confusion from some that have watched this trial closely are very concerning...then I hear we have one juror napping off and on and all it takes is one juror to hang the jury.

 

[In vino veritas]

That's what the defense wants. Confusion about irrelevant things like drugs that are not in the bloodstream. Have fun! I'm out, too.

Out of curiosity, any thoughts on possible convictions at this juncture in the trial?

IMO, there is enough reasonable doubt to elimination conviction on 2nd degree murder. I’m on the fence about the third degree murder charge. A definite yes on the 2nd degree manslaughter.

 

[CrimeAway]

I trust you. I don't need a link. You're welcome to add it though.

I just want to know to what end about these possible drugs in the stomach. If the drug was there but not absorbed into the blood stream, why does it matter?

If drugs in the stomach have no effect because they haven't been absorbed, then I consider the autospy sufficient. But I just need to know how unabsorbed drug can affect a person.

Your point is very valid and well received by me .

I think the point is that:

1) the state's position is that DC's restraint played a substantive, (superceding?) causative role in GF's death

2) defense maintains that is not the case, and raises the possibility that illicit substance use, amongst other things, were at least causative factors in GF's death

3) defense seeks to raise issues that present reasonable doubt to the state's case

4) if state maintains that GFs drug use was earlier, (remember the norfentanyl toxicology evidence?), and not a substantive causal factor, then absence of drugs in the stomach contents could have helped that. I.E. no drug residue found in stomach contents, could help refute recent drug use and remove one source of potential reasonable doubt.

5) since no tox analysis of stomach contents was done, we can't be sure of point 4). Why wouldn't it be done???

 

[turaj]

I am 100% for minimum third degree given less than one year ago he was ready to plead that charge. To me that says he knew at that time and now that he needs to pay for what he did. I would have no problem with 2nd but will take 3rd which means we are back to where we were in the first place. Crazy.

 

[CrimeAway]

Thank you. I did not know that this method would make the drug immediately detectable in the blood stream.

That's going to depend somewhat on the drug pharmacokinetics, the blood vessels closest to drug absorbtion, heart rate, blood pressure, whether the blood that originally contained the drug has gone through the liver and/or kidneys (and whether drug is primarily metabolized by those organs, or excreted unchanged or partially metabolized in urine and/or feces), and also where the blood sample sent to toxicology was taken from, amongst other factors. (MOO).

 

[bluebird69]

I am 100% for minimum third degree given less than one year ago he was ready to plead that charge. To me that says he knew at that time and now that he needs to pay for what he did. I would have no problem with 2nd but will take 3rd which means we are back to where we were in the first place. Crazy.

Based on the interim poll set up by sillybilly, based on the 60+ votes so far, we could have a hung jury.. bearing in mind that none of us have the fear of being identified at a later date as the actual jury members will be

 

[CrimeAway]

If I have COPD and a weak heart for example, and I use my Albuterol inhaler, and someone takes a blood sample immediately afterwards, from a vessel near my chest, that will show a different (drug) level that if someone takes a blood sample from my big toe at the same time!

MOO

 

[wasnt_me]

Your point is very valid and well received by me .

I think the point is that:

1) the state's position is that DC's restraint played a substantive, (superceding?) causative role in GF's death

2) defense maintains that is not the case, and raises the possibility that illicit substance use, amongst other things, were at least causative factors in GF's death

3) defense seeks to raise issues that present reasonable doubt to the state's case

4) if state maintains that GFs drug use was earlier, (remember the norfentanyl toxicology evidence?), and not a substantive causal factor, then absence of drugs in the stomach contents could have helped that. I.E. no drug residue found in stomach contents, could help refute recent drug use and remove one source of potential reasonable doubt.

5) since no tox analysis of stomach contents was done, we can't be sure of 4). Why wouldn't it be done???

Respectfully, this isn't answering my question. If the drugs have not been absorbed into the bloodstream, they are not having any effect on the user.

Isn't that correct?

If it is, why does it matter if the drugs are there?

I came back because Dr. Fowler testified that there were no pills or pill residue in the stomach. He did testify that he didn't know of any other tests on the stomach contents, but again, to what end? If any drugs in the stomach do not affect the rest of the body until they reach the blood stream, why does it matter?

 

[Algo214]

Comments about confusion from some that have watched this trial closely are very concerning...then I hear we have one juror napping off and on and all it takes is one juror to hang the jury.

Very concerning, but I guess there will be one Foreperson who will smooth things out in the real one
As I tried to do here

 

[CrimeAway]

Guys, I don't think any of the last few posts would make any difference in this case.
AFAIK and FWIW, GF was only found to have ingested/swallowed/dissolved in the mouth 1 pill (correct me if I'm wrong, since this was actually part of today's discussion on Court) and I'd be really hard-pressed to reasonably believe that fragments of 1 pill would be a deal breaker in regards to cause of death.

But in any case continue, it's otherwise an interesting topic, albeit a bit OT imo.

I concede that we do not know how much, if any fentanyl and/or methamphetamine Mr Floyd ingested/chewed/swallowed/was affected by during the course of his arrest. If the stomach contents had been sent for toxicology, and if Mr Hall had been willing to (truthfully) testify to his knowledge of the pills found in the Mercedes SUV, (source, type, number etc.), then these matters might have been further elucidated for us, and more importantly, the (awake) members of the jury. (All MOO).

However, I would like to clarify that fentanyl is a very potent narcotic. 1 pill, or 1% strength does not seem much, but in the context of fentanyl, I think it is important to remember that it is a drug that is therapeutically prescribed in MICROgrams (mcg) or 1 millionth of a gram (MOO)

Micrograms to Grams conversion

 

[wasnt_me]

If I have COPD and a weak heart for example, and I use my Albuterol inhaler, and someone takes a blood sample immediately afterwards, from a vessel near my chest, that will show a different (drug) level that if someone takes a blood sample from my big toe at the same time!

MOO

But we'd be talking seconds to get to the toe? Minutes? Hours? It's just me, but I'd think the person taking the blood at autopsy knows the best place to take it for optimal results, and if the drug has not been absorbed through the stomach, I have yet to hear how it affects a person just sitting there, waiting on absorption.