Murderer Chauvin loses appeal

[Curried Goats]

The confusion could be cleared up with you actually reading the article.

I made the claim, was asked to provide a link and so I did. I have no further obligations in this regard. The rest is up to you.

I quoted the relevent line from the article in Post #612.

This is a lie. Here is your post #612. No where is there a quote from the article. You summarize the paragraph about Mitchell but you get a number of details wrong. Also there is no point in the article it details any pressure from prosecutors. Mitchell is a retired M.E., not a prosecutor.

If you’re the type to declare incompetence based on one oversight or error in judgment, that’s you. I’m not doing that.

I don’t know enough about his work history to say he’s incompetent. I just think he folded to pressure in this case.


I also said he likely believed he was doing the right thing by changing the report.

This is what I was talking about when I brought up the human psyche. Someone told him he was wrong or that his findings were incomplete and for his own reasons, he believed them.

Actually that was based on something someone here said (SavannahMan, I believe) but I misunderstood which ME he was referring to.

This person was Dr. Fowler -a retired ME who does consulting work - who was brought in to testify for the defense. He apparently initially said he would have ruled “undetermined” but later changed his mind.

As for Baker, his initial report did not include neck compression and that displeased many people. Because of this, his office received “‘hundreds’ of calls, some harassing and threatening.”

A Dr. Mitchell from D.C., who is an expert in in-custody deaths, contacted Baker and expressed his displeasure with Baker’s findings and said he planned to write a critical op-ed in the Washington Post about it.

So, despite saying in the trial that he was not pressured, he was nevertheless harangued by various people to add “neck compression” to the autopsy report.

Below are a couple of links.

Medical examiner: No pressure on Floyd autopsy report

Forensic pathologist says manner of Floyd’s death ‘undetermined’ - Minnesota Reformer

Baker did not consult Michell, Mitchell contacted Baker.

Mitchell contacted Baker and they consulted. This is Bakers own testimony and from your own link which you refuse to quote because it doesnt say what you keep claiming it does.

Baker said his office received “hundreds” of calls, some harassing and threatening. Former Washington, D.C., medical examiner Dr. Roger Mitchell, who is an expert in in-custody deaths, also called Baker and was unhappy. Baker said the two talked about neck compression, and Mitchell also planned to publish a critical op-ed in The Washington Post. Baker said he considered Mitchell’s opinion and analysis before adding neck compression to his report.

It says he called Baker and was unhappy. It never says he was unhappy at Baker. That seems what you want to infer. In fact it makes it clear at the time Mitchell contacted Baker that his report wasn't finished since he was still adding to it. How would Mitchell have seen his unfinished, unpublished autopsy report?

He had submitted his findings to prosecutors before the release.

I don’t know how Mitchell found out about Baker’s initial findings but he was not happy and said he planned to write a critical op-ed in the Wasington Post about it.

Your article also clears this up for you if only you bothered to read it.

Thao’s attorney, Robert Paule, asked Tuesday whether Baker was pressured into listing “neck compression” as a factor in his autopsy report. Baker testified that he told prosecutors on the day of Floyd’s autopsy that there was no physical evidence of asphyxia, or insufficient oxygen. Prosecutors put that information in their initial complaint against Chauvin, and listed existing health conditions, police restraint and potential intoxicants as contributing factors.

Baker testified he told prosecutors there was no physical evidence of asphyxia or insufficient oxygen at some point during the day he did the autopsy but his autopsy wasn't concluded that day. He didn't release a finalized autopsy until much later when tox screens and drug panels came back and after he had consulted with Mitchell about a form of death he hadn't seen before and made his conclusions. The prosecutors own initial complaint that this paragraph refers to says those findings are preliminary. I've also provided evidence of this already.

The issue for Mitchell and prosecutors was the absence of anything about neck compression.

Based on what? The article just says he was upset.

The official released report included neck compression but the findings about the absence of signs of asphyxiation remained.

In the intial complaint that refers to those findings as preliminary you fucktard.

What do you mean he “rushed” to add those preliminary findings..?

The prosecutor admits those findings are preliminary, the only reason I can think of including that information in the initial charging document is because the prosecutor wanted the preliminary information out there.

“Unlike you”? I never said anything about the charging document so I was not obligated to quote it.

The charging document is your baby, not mine.

It's also yours. It's where the preliminary findings come from. You can't cry about these preliminary findings and then not want to discuss the source if them. That's a bit disingenuous don't you think or are you passed pretending to this is reasoned commentary?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Any idiot can stubbornly hold onto the same stupid position.

Says the idiot who stubbornly holds onto his position.

That’s not something you should be proud of.

I’m neither proud nor not proud of my position. It’s simply a view I have.

You’re still arguing that your non-expert opinion is more likely than the opinion from the medical examiner.

Absent the tremendous pressure he was under, I would agree with you. But…

Explain to me how that’s an intelligent argument please. Why are you more likely to be correct than the professional medical expert? You still can’t explain why this opinion of yours isn’t completely retarded, because it is.

I’m not obligated to explain why my argument isn’t completely retarded since that is your subjective opinion, not established fact.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Where is the evidence of this supposed pressure?

Read the article.

 

[Curried Goats]

Read the article.

I did. Try not to be a bitch about people calling your bluff.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Oh please. Everyone saw them on top of Floyd until he was dead.

Wrong. Chauvin was the only one on him for seven (or eight or nine or…) minutes

And still didn't get up. That's manslaughter. According to his training, he was required to monitor Floyd's health while kneeling on him. When did he do that?

I have maintained from the beginning that if Chauvin is guilty of not following training guidelines then he should have been punished accordingly.

Beyond that, it should be noted that EMS was called mere seconds after they pulled him from the cruiser and placed him on the ground.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

This is a lie. Here is your post #612. No where is there a quote from the article.

I was incorrect that I included a quote in Post #612 but I knew I did so somewhere. As it turns out, I quoted from the article in a post to YOU.

Here is the link below from Post #635 addressed to you:

Murderer Chauvin loses appeal

You summarize the paragraph about Mitchell but you get a number of details wrong. Also there is no point in the article it details any pressure from prosecutors. Mitchell is a retired M.E., not a prosecutor.

No shit, dumbass. I never said Mitchell was a prosecutor.

Mitchell contacted Baker and they consulted.

No, they did not “consult”. Mitchell contacted Baker to express criticism about his initial findings not mentioning neck compression.

What was said between them after this, I don’t know. I only know that Baker added neck compression after Mitchell confronted him.

This is Bakers own testimony and from your own link which you refuse to quote because it doesnt say what you keep claiming it does.

Baker said his office received “hundreds” of calls, some harassing and threatening. Former Washington, D.C., medical examiner Dr. Roger Mitchell, who is an expert in in-custody deaths, also called Baker and was unhappy. Baker said the two talked about neck compression, and Mitchell also planned to publish a critical op-ed in The Washington Post. Baker said he considered Mitchell’s opinion and analysis before adding neck compression to his report.

It says he called Baker and was unhappy. It never says he was unhappy at Baker. That seems what you want to infer.

This is a distinction without a difference. He was unhappy with Baker’s findings and confronted him about it.

In fact it makes it clear at the time Mitchell contacted Baker that his report wasn't finished since he was still adding to it.

Never said it was.

How would Mitchell have seen his unfinished, unpublished autopsy report?

If Mitchell hadn’t seen the initial report then how the fuck did he know it did not include neck compression?

Your article also clears this up for you if only you bothered to read it.

Thao’s attorney, Robert Paule, asked Tuesday whether Baker was pressured into listing “neck compression” as a factor in his autopsy report. Baker testified that he told prosecutors on the day of Floyd’s autopsy that there was no physical evidence of asphyxia, or insufficient oxygen. Prosecutors put that information in their initial complaint against Chauvin, and listed existing health conditions, police restraint and potential intoxicants as contributing factors.

Baker testified he told prosecutors there was no physical evidence of asphyxia or insufficient oxygen at some point during the day he did the autopsy but his autopsy wasn't concluded that day. He didn't release a finalized autopsy until much later when tox screens and drug panels came back and after he had consulted with Mitchell about a form of death he hadn't seen before and made his conclusions. The prosecutors own initial complaint that this paragraph refers to says those findings are preliminary. I've also provided evidence of this already.

I don’t see the point here.

One has to wonder why this expert from D.C. inserted himself in a case that did not concern him.

Based on what? The article just says he was upset.

Then what were prosecutors and Mitchell upset about for Christ’s sake?

In the intial complaint that refers to those findings as preliminary you fucktard.

What’s your point? They were still there in the released report (you fucktard).

The prosecutor admits those findings are preliminary, the only reason I can think of including that information in the initial charging document is because the prosecutor wanted the preliminary information out there.

Why?

It's also yours. It's where the preliminary findings come from.

No, it is not. The preliminary findings come from the preliminary findings.

You can't cry about these preliminary findings and then not want to discuss the source if them.

You idiot. The charging document is not the source of the preliminary findings.

That's a bit disingenuous don't you think or are you passed pretending to this is reasoned commentary?

It’s not my commentary.

You’re bringing up strawman irrelevancies about things I never said, brought up or disputed.

 

[XponentialChaos]

If he had nothing in the report to actually support this then yes, I question it.

Explain to me why anyone with more than two brain cells would consider your stupid opinion more credible than that of the medical expert. You still can’t answer this.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Says the idiot who stubbornly holds onto his position.

You think I’m an idiot for believing that the competent medical examiner is more likely to be correct about the cause of death than you are? Lmao. That’s what you’re going with?! One guy has medical degrees, pathology experience, and he conducted the autopsy. You have none of those qualifications. And you think I’m an idiot for going with his conclusion over yours? LoL

 

[Curried Goats]

I was incorrect that I included a quote in Post #612 but I knew I did so somewhere. As it turns out, I quoted from the article in a post to YOU.

Here is the link below from Post #635 addressed to you:

Murderer Chauvin loses appeal

Ok now I've re -read the link there which also does not say what you claim. Here's a quote from it since you refuse to provide any actual snippets you think support you.

Both the medical examiner and the family’s experts differed from the description in last week’s criminal complaint against the officer of how Floyd died. The complaint, citing preliminary findings from the medical examiner, listed the effects of being restrained, along with underlying health issues and potential intoxicants in Floyd’s system. But it also said nothing was found “to support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.” Neither side has released its full autopsy report so far.

That link also cites the preliminary findings in the charging document.

No shit, dumbass. I never said Mitchell was a prosecutor.

You said prosecutors pressured Baker. Where is anything from any article detailing that? There are references to angry phone calls and Mitchell being upset but nothing about prosecutors pressuring him to include neck compression.

No, they did not “consult”. Mitchell contacted Baker to express criticism about his initial findings not mentioning neck compression.

The article says Mitchell was upset and that they discussed neck compression. It does not say Mitchell was upset about there being no mention of neck compression. Also who is Mitchell? A retired M.E.? Why would Baker feel any pressure from him? He had no involvement in the case beyond what Baker himself allowed.

What was said between them after this, I don’t know. I only know that Baker added neck compression after Mitchell confronted him.

You don't even know for sure what Mitchell confronted him about it. Mitchell could of been pissed at there being preliminary information released at all which wasn't Baker's doing. That was the prosecutor. I'm sure that's not something they typically do.

This is a distinction without a difference. He was unhappy with Baker’s findings and confronted him about it.

That not a distinction thats something you made up whole cloth.

If Mitchell hadn’t seen the initial report then how the fuck did he know it did not include neck compression?

Everyone saw the initial charging document. That's public record.

I don’t see the point here.

One has to wonder why this expert from D.C. inserted himself in a case that did not concern him.

One has to wonder why you think this rando was enough to pressure Baker into saying someone committed homicide if he didn't think they did or was unsure.

Then what were prosecutors and Mitchell upset about for Christ’s sake?

What prosecutor. I dont know what angry prosecutor youre refering to. No article mentions any prosecutor pressuring Baker.

What’s your point? They were still there in the released report (you fucktard).

They weren't the conclusions of final report which was homicide.

Why?


No, it is not. The preliminary findings come from the preliminary findings.


You idiot. The charging document is not the source of the preliminary findings.

It is. If you have some other source of the preliminary findings then present them but two links now talking about the preliminary findings refer back to the initial charging document. That's 2 for me and none for you if you're keeping score.

It’s not my commentary.

You’re bringing up strawman irrelevancies about things I never said, brought up or disputed.

I'm the only one with an actual source of the preliminary findings. If they weren't released via the charging document by the prosecutor then where else were they released?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Explain to me why anyone with more than two brain cells would consider your stupid opinion more credible than that of the medical expert. You still can’t answer this.

Again, what would be the point?

You think I’m an idiot for believing that the competent medical examiner is more likely to be correct about the cause of death than you are?

You’re the one calling me an idiot.

Lmao. That’s what you’re going with?!

No, it’s not. I’ve explained many times why I think he’s wrong and it has nothing to do with his expertise. But it is either beyond your comprehension or you simply refuse to consider the premise. Either way, it doesn’t matter because your mind is made up.

One guy has medical degrees, pathology experience, and he conducted the autopsy. You have none of those qualifications. And you think I’m an idiot for going with his conclusion over yours? LoL

Never called anyone idiot, you did. And anyway, why would I call you idiot if you agreed with me?

 

[justoffal]

So you, having no medical experience whatsoever, believe that the medical expert who conducted the autopsy is wrong. Correct?

He was too scared to be objective. Had he exonerated Chauvin he would have had his career ruined and literally would have had to fear for his life.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Says the idiot who stubbornly holds onto his position.

Never called anyone idiot, you did. And anyway, why would I call you idiot if you agreed with me?

And now you're lying.

Now that we've established that you're a liar, you're calling me an idiot for believing the medical examiner with advanced degrees over you. That's stupid. Now why the hell would anyone think that you're more likely to be correct compared to the medical examiner? How is that an intelligent argument? Still no answer to this.

 

[XponentialChaos]

He was too scared to be objective. Had he exonerated Chauvin he would have had his career ruined and literally would have had to fear for his life.

Another one who claims that the medical examiner is wrong. Do you have any medical experience or any supporting evidence behind your claim, or are you just full of shit?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Ok now I've re -read the link there which also does not say what you claim. Here's a quote from it since you refuse to provide any actual snippets you think support you.

Both the medical examiner and the family’s experts differed from the description in last week’s criminal complaint against the officer of how Floyd died. The complaint, citing preliminary findings from the medical examiner, listed the effects of being restrained, along with underlying health issues and potential intoxicants in Floyd’s system. But it also said nothing was found “to support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.” Neither side has released its full autopsy report so far.

That link also cites the preliminary findings in the charging document.

Again, the charging document is your baby, not mine.

You said prosecutors pressured Baker. Where is anything from any article detailing that?

if you read it as you say, you tell me.

There are references to angry phone calls and Mitchell being upset but nothing about prosecutors pressuring him to include neck compression.

Then what were they unhappy about?

The article says Mitchell was upset and that they discussed neck compression. It does not say Mitchell was upset about there being no mention of neck compression.

If he was upset about something else then why did they discuss neck compression?

Also who is Mitchell? A retired M.E.? Why would Baker feel any pressure from him? He had no involvement in the case beyond what Baker himself allowed.

Exactly. So why did Baker talk to to Mitchell at all?

You don't even know for sure what Mitchell confronted him about it.

Neck compression, dumbass.

It makes no sense that Mitchell would be upset about something else entirely but they would discuss neck compression and then Baker would add it to the report.

Mitchell could of been pissed at there being preliminary information released at all which wasn't Baker's doing. That was the prosecutor. I'm sure that's not something they typically do.

But he discussed neck compression.

Prosecutors and Mithell were all unhappy about something yet neck compression was the only point of contention in the article.

Do the math, for Christ’s sake.

That not a distinction thats something you made up whole cloth.

I’m going by what the article said.

Everyone saw the initial charging document. That's public record.

And?

One has to wonder why you think this rando was enough to pressure Baker into saying someone committed homicide if he didn't think they did or was unsure.

Mitchell didn’t confront him about the homicide finding, which was in the initial report. He confronted him about there being no mention of neck compression.

What prosecutor. I dont know what angry prosecutor youre refering to.

Ask the author of the article. And I never said anyone was “angry”, I said “unhappy” which is the word the author used.

No article mentions any prosecutor pressuring Baker.

If they expressed that they were unhappy with the autopsy report then I take that as pressure.

They weren't the conclusions of final report which was homicide.

And neck compression.

It is. If you have some other source of the preliminary findings then present them but two links now talking about the preliminary findings refer back to the initial charging document.

Which reflects the preliminary findings of the autopsy.

That's 2 for me and none for you if you're keeping score.

I’m not. It’s not a contest.

I'm the only one with an actual source of the preliminary findings. If they weren't released via the charging document by the prosecutor then where else were they released?

Why does this even matter?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

And now you're lying.

About what?

Now that we've established that you're a liar,

You established I was a liar long before this.

you're calling me an idiot for believing the medical examiner with advanced degrees over you.

Pure conjecture.

You’re the one throwing the words “idiot” and “retard” around, not me.

That's stupid. Now why the hell would anyone think that you're more likely to be correct compared to the medical examiner? How is that an intelligent argument? Still no answer to this.

I don’t know and I don’t care. I’ve made my case; believe it or don’t. My obligations end there.

 

[XponentialChaos]

About what?

You’re the one throwing the words “idiot” and “retard” around, not me.

That's another lie. I showed proof that you are throwing the word idiot around. Pay attention this time to the quote I showed. I'll underline it for you this time so you don't get to play stupid about your lie.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I don’t know and I don’t care. I’ve made my case; believe it or don’t. My obligations end there.

Right. So you can't explain why anyone with more than two brain cells would take your input about the cause of death over the medical examiner's analysis about the cause of death. He's the expert and you aren't. Anyone with any intelligence will consider him more credible than you on matters regarding pathology. Your argument is a stupid argument. QED.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That's another lie. I showed proof that you are throwing the word idiot around. Pay attention this time to the quote I showed. I'll underline it for you this time so you don't get to play stupid about your lie.

View attachment 870617

Oh Jesus please us.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Right. So you can't explain why anyone with more than two brain cells would take your input about the cause of death over the medical examiner's analysis about the cause of death.

I never tried other than to explain my premise for doing so. You either can’t understand the premise or simply rejected it.

Why you expect any more than this is beyond me.

He's the expert and you aren't.

On pathology, yes.

Anyone with any intelligence will consider him more credible than you on matters regarding pathology.

As they should.

Your argument is a stupid argument. QED.

I get that you don’t agree. I just don’t see the point in you telling me over and over that you don’t agree.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Oh Jesus please us.

Care to address your lie this time, liar?