Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if there are toxicology reports for Chauvin? Was he high on drugs at the time he killed Floyd?

Yes. The Medical Examiner stated that there was enough fentanyl to have killed him. That if he had been found dead at home, there were enough drugs in his system that they would have been ruled the cause of death.

Anonymous wrote:When does the jury start deliberations?

The defense gets to present its side first.

When does the jury start deliberations?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think maybe Nelson is laying the foundation that the half eaten pills later found in the police cruiser, could have changed the original autopsy reports, information the experts did not have when they wrote their findings.

I think the pills are relevant to some of the defense arguments because they contained meth (not at super high levels though) and were ingested or attempted to be ingested at the scene. Which the defense is insinuating counteracted the opioids and might be why Floyd wasn’t nodding off. Again not saying this is a super strong argument but the implications of “speedballs” have definitely come up. The meth levels in the pills and the meth levels in the toxicology report are not very high. One of the experts testified the meth level in tox report is consistent with a therapeutic dose of methamphetamine.

I guess that another aspect of bringing up the pills is that it might slightly discredit the state in the eyes of the jury, but I’m not sure that effect is super strong here since it’s a former police officer at trial. I guess it has some effect but I’m really not sure. I thought the BCA witness handled the explanation pretty well of how they were originally processing the car for the swabs on the plexiglass divider, then they sealed the car and reprocessed it when the request to process for the pills came in. I’m not sure why the pills wouldn’t have been seized for evidence the first time. I suppose it could be as simple as that explanation, but it is still problematic.

FO with the bad attempt to manipulate social media. Were you also here posting before the election trying to normalize fascism?. The bolded is not a fact azzhat.

I’m not arguing this was a cause of death or an effective defense. The meth levels tested in the pills and tox were low, which is also in the post. They were found in the squad car with Floyd’s DNA, so I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to conclude what happened inclusive of the video from scene. It doesn’t exonerate Chauvin. The defense seems to be using the meth content to attempt to create reasonable doubt, since medical experts will testify that opioids make people nod off. But the autopsy and tox levels are more relevant than the pills. I guess Nelson could use it to try to discredit the autopsy but that doesn’t seem credible at this point. The main reason the pills have been brought up by the defense so far is the “speedball” aspect. That doesn’t mean it’s true, but the defense has to present their case. The prosecution has also openly presented addiction, because ignoring it could damage their credibility.

I don’t believe addiction is a character flaw. Addiction is a disease.

My personal opinion is the pills are basically irrelevant. I think it’s strange they weren’t immediately tagged and processed because of how generally thorough the investigation is, but I don’t think that it helps the defense that much. But I guess it comes down to what he can convince jurors of. I would guess an average juror would not be swayed by the defense so far.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think maybe Nelson is laying the foundation that the half eaten pills later found in the police cruiser, could have changed the original autopsy reports, information the experts did not have when they wrote their findings.

I think the pills are relevant to some of the defense arguments because they contained meth (not at super high levels though) and were ingested or attempted to be ingested at the scene. Which the defense is insinuating counteracted the opioids and might be why Floyd wasn’t nodding off. Again not saying this is a super strong argument but the implications of “speedballs” have definitely come up. The meth levels in the pills and the meth levels in the toxicology report are not very high. One of the experts testified the meth level in tox report is consistent with a therapeutic dose of methamphetamine.

I guess that another aspect of bringing up the pills is that it might slightly discredit the state in the eyes of the jury, but I’m not sure that effect is super strong here since it’s a former police officer at trial. I guess it has some effect but I’m really not sure. I thought the BCA witness handled the explanation pretty well of how they were originally processing the car for the swabs on the plexiglass divider, then they sealed the car and reprocessed it when the request to process for the pills came in. I’m not sure why the pills wouldn’t have been seized for evidence the first time. I suppose it could be as simple as that explanation, but it is still problematic.

FO with the bad attempt to manipulate social media. Were you also here posting before the election trying to normalize fascism?. The bolded is not a fact azzhat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a guilty verdict (if there is one) will result in mixed feelings for many.

1. Finally, justice for a murderous cop.

2. We need full-length video of a murder/torture to get that justice. That's a high bar.

Totally agree. Hate that it takes all of this glaring evidence, and it STILL might not be enough.

And that is so unaccepatable and Chauvin knew it. He was completely confident as he murdered Floyd that he wouldn't be punished at all.

Anonymous wrote:I think maybe Nelson is laying the foundation that the half eaten pills later found in the police cruiser, could have changed the original autopsy reports, information the experts did not have when they wrote their findings.

I think the pills are relevant to some of the defense arguments because they contained meth (not at super high levels though) and were ingested or attempted to be ingested at the scene. Which the defense is insinuating counteracted the opioids and might be why Floyd wasn’t nodding off. Again not saying this is a super strong argument but the implications of “speedballs” have definitely come up. The meth levels in the pills and the meth levels in the toxicology report are not very high. One of the experts testified the meth level in tox report is consistent with a therapeutic dose of methamphetamine.

I guess that another aspect of bringing up the pills is that it might slightly discredit the state in the eyes of the jury, but I’m not sure that effect is super strong here since it’s a former police officer at trial. I guess it has some effect but I’m really not sure. I thought the BCA witness handled the explanation pretty well of how they were originally processing the car for the swabs on the plexiglass divider, then they sealed the car and reprocessed it when the request to process for the pills came in. I’m not sure why the pills wouldn’t have been seized for evidence the first time. I suppose it could be as simple as that explanation, but it is still problematic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From NYT:

Mr. Nelson also sought to portray the medical care that Mr. Floyd received from paramedics as lacking, saying they had not inserted a tube down Mr. Floyd’s throat until nine minutes after they arrived.

WTF. Didn't we learn from the paramedic herself that the cops had told her to back off?!

You may be confusing an off duty MFD employee with the dispatched EMTs who treated Floyd. The dispatch EMTs were both male.

In my opinion he was mostly trying to elicit testimony on the complications at the scene that led the EMTs to choose to move to another location (which required one to drive the ambulance while Lane assisted the other in the back of the ambulance). This is probably really the main point that could bolster the assertion of a complex scene/crowd. Defense has floated the concept of crowd complications in the use of force sections of the trial. It’s not a particularly strong argument as far as I see it, but the defense has to present some narrative.

Any critical care complications could create reasonable doubt, but as we move into medical testimony it’ll probably become more clear that Floyd’s pulse couldn’t be detected before an ambulance arrived. There’s no objectively reasonable wrongdoing by the EMTs (as far as we’ve seen), so it would be hard for Nelson to go too far down that path without losing credibility.

DP. I think PP is referencing Genevieve Hanson, a Mpls EMT who just happened to be in the area, she wasn’t dispatched. She testified early on.

Yes, Genevieve Hanson is an off duty fire fighter who interacted with the officers at the scene. She testified she was off duty and did not have her ID. Thao asked her not to enter the scene (stated something like “if you are a firefighter you would know this”). For medical emergencies fire fighters and paramedics are typically cross trained, of course. I assume that’s the case here because a fire truck followed the ambulance for the emergency dispatch and arrived by cup foods after the ambulance left to the second location. One of the other MFD employees on that truck interacted with Hanson, who was still at the scene. I am just clarifying that Hanson wasn’t the dispatched paramedic or EMT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a guilty verdict (if there is one) will result in mixed feelings for many.

1. Finally, justice for a murderous cop.

2. We need full-length video of a murder/torture to get that justice. That's a high bar.

Totally agree. Hate that it takes all of this glaring evidence, and it STILL might not be enough.

I’m so worried it won’t be.

It will be a START.

And we will go from there.

NP here, I read that as the person being worried there won't be a conviction. I agree with you that if Chauvin is found guilty of murder it will be a start, but I am also very worried that that won't happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a guilty verdict (if there is one) will result in mixed feelings for many.

1. Finally, justice for a murderous cop.

2. We need full-length video of a murder/torture to get that justice. That's a high bar.

Totally agree. Hate that it takes all of this glaring evidence, and it STILL might not be enough.

I’m so worried it won’t be.

It will be a START.

And we will go from there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a guilty verdict (if there is one) will result in mixed feelings for many.

1. Finally, justice for a murderous cop.

2. We need full-length video of a murder/torture to get that justice. That's a high bar.

Totally agree. Hate that it takes all of this glaring evidence, and it STILL might not be enough.

I’m so worried it won’t be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chauvin was torturing him on purpose. Disgusting.

This is the part I found most compelling. The amount of weight on his neck alone as evidenced by Chauvin's body and foot position. Truly riveting testimony and I hope this along with the medical examiner's testimony today seals the deal for him being found guilty.

Remember the apologists who were swearing Chauvin wasn’t doing this?

Anonymous wrote:I think a guilty verdict (if there is one) will result in mixed feelings for many.

1. Finally, justice for a murderous cop.

2. We need full-length video of a murder/torture to get that justice. That's a high bar.

Totally agree. Hate that it takes all of this glaring evidence, and it STILL might not be enough.

Anonymous wrote:I think a guilty verdict (if there is one) will result in mixed feelings for many.

1. Finally, justice for a murderous cop.

2. We need full-length video of a murder/torture to get that justice. That's a high bar.

Even this couldn't secure a guilty verdict.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46358846