- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 48,245
- Reaction score
- 128,584
agreed. Baker held his own. Nelson can go lick his wounds with that small irrelevant victory.'First' being the operable word.
agreed. Baker held his own. Nelson can go lick his wounds with that small irrelevant victory.'First' being the operable word.
I find the mention of this pill by the defense odd. Any reasonable person can understand if a pill is found outside of a body, it is not possible to have ingested it. Perhaps if it were implied to be in soneone's mouth, the majority of said pill is still intact so any amount ingested would be very minimal. Jmo
As long as he doesn’t come to FL to lay in the prone position while he does it!agreed. Baker held his own. Nelson can go lick his wounds with that small irrelevant victory.
Dr Baker repeatedly deferred these questions to experts in those fields, cardiologists, pulmonologists and toxicologists as being the appropriate sources to respond to these questions.Would GF have died if the compression only lasted 5 mins, for example? Would his heart condition or effects of fentanyl usage (exacerbated by the encounter with LE) have killed him regardless? Would the restraint have had the same effect on an otherwise healthy person? These are questions I have only after Dr. Baker’s testimony.
I don’t think the State can prove 2nd degree murder, I don’t think they will prove 3rd degree murder (although it’s not over), but I think they have proven manslaughter.https://twitter.com/DannySpewak/status/1380619271177396230
NELSON: "In terms of the placing of Mr. Chauvin’s knee, would that explain... would that anatomically cut off Mr. Floyd’s air?" DR. BAKER: "In my opinion, it would not."
For the many asking about how this impacts "intent" in the minds of the jurors, remember, second-degree murder requires proof that Chauvin intended to commit felony assault leading to Floyd's death. It doesn't require proof that he specifically intended to kill Floyd.
I almost wish Dr. Baker would have testified first, before the other medical experts. I’m trying to see things as a juror would.Dr Baker repeatedly deferred these questions to experts in those fields, cardiologists, pulmonologists and toxicologists as being the appropriate sources to respond to these questions.
They did that yesterday while dealing with and describing actual footage of a living man. George Floyd was alive until his life was extinguished by external as opposed to organic forces.
He did not apply these forces to his own body.
But for. But for. But for. It's just more hypotheticals. Dr Baker isn't a fool Nelson.
You're right, you know.I almost wish Dr. Baker would have testified first, before the other medical experts. I’m trying to see things as a juror would.
I think that Nelson is trying to illustrate areas of reasonable doubt for the jury, and as defense counsel, that's his job, IMO.![]()
Taking the facts away from a case to create a different outcome doesn't create reasonable doubt. It creates a falsehood. A fictitious story.
I can too, but in homicide cases, analyzing the crime scene is usually an important part of the autopsy.