George Floyd

Damming evidence today - that’s a police officers evidence.

Not watched todays proceedings yet FC. The case is begining to build, brick by brick. The defence case is obvious at this point, George Floyd died of a drug overrdose.

From opening statements it was always going to come down to cause of death, and I don't think that has changed with evidence given to date, excluding todays evidence, obviously.

I do hope the prosecution has an iron clad case before they rest, clearly the defence do have a case to present to the jury, I just hope that it's done and dusted before then.

If you have been watching the trial FC, what do you make of the defence attorney, Eric Nelson? I think he is very unlikeable and he should have been reprimanded for his comment yesterday to the second paramedic "In the couse of your work have you attended other heroin overdoses, I apologise, in the course of your work have you attended heroin overdoses?"
 
He is clearly guilty. The net is closing on him...
You are setting yourself up to be disappointed, the defence have not presented a single piece of evidece yet. We do not, at this time know whether George Floyd died of an heroin overdose, which seems to be the defence case.
 
I’ll be interested to hear the actual defence.
Hinted at last night that maybe he stayed kneeling where he was as he was scared of the angry bystanders. That’s not gonna hold much water.

if the police are even splitting ranks like today I can only see this guy not passing go and going straight to jail. I can see him lasting a few years at tops once in jail.
 
I’ll be interested to hear the actual defence.
Hinted at last night that maybe he stayed kneeling where he was as he was scared of the angry bystanders. That’s not gonna hold much water.

if the police are even splitting ranks like today I can only see this guy not passing go and going straight to jail. I can see him lasting a few years at tops once in jail.
I hope you are right FC, I have got to the point where I don't really care whether Chauvin directly caused George Floyd's death. He is clearly a dangerous individual. I think the police may be ass covering underr command, rather than splitting ranks.

One thing I find reprehensible is that the Mineapolis police union have funded Chauvin's defence to the tune of a million dollars.
 
Not watched todays proceedings yet FC. The case is begining to build, brick by brick. The defence case is obvious at this point, George Floyd died of a drug overrdose.

From opening statements it was always going to come down to cause of death, and I don't think that has changed with evidence given to date, excluding todays evidence, obviously.

I do hope the prosecution has an iron clad case before they rest, clearly the defence do have a case to present to the jury, I just hope that it's done and dusted before then.

If you have been watching the trial FC, what do you make of the defence attorney, Eric Nelson? I think he is very unlikeable and he should have been reprimanded for his comment yesterday to the second paramedic "In the couse of your work have you attended other heroin overdoses, I apologise, in the course of your work have you attended heroin overdoses?"
Me and the Mrs first tuned in earlier in the week and we were like who is this guy((we didn’t initially know whether he was the defence or prosecution as we tuned in midway through the
seemed ill prepared and a bit all over the place. He’s got better but I don’t always follow what point he is trying to make with his style of questioning.

I missed the bit you mentioned about the overdose comment but yes a very dirty but cunning trick.

I like steve a lei her the prosecutor he seems like a good guy , I thought his point about when the officers should stop restraining George Floyd was well made and helped highlight the errors of the police.

only in America will this police officer get off!

I
 
Me and the Mrs first tuned in earlier in the week and we were like who is this guy((we didn’t initially know whether he was the defence or prosecution as we tuned in midway through the
seemed ill prepared and a bit all over the place. He’s got better but I don’t always follow what point he is trying to make with his style of questioning.

I missed the bit you mentioned about the overdose comment but yes a very dirty but cunning trick.

I like steve a lei her the prosecutor he seems like a good guy , I thought his point about when the officers should stop restraining George Floyd was well made and helped highlight the errors of the police.

only in America will this police officer get off!

I
I think you are right about only in the USA. He may well not get off, as I think we all believe he is guilty "of something". The question is will the jury agree once they are told how to apply the law.
 
Not watched todays proceedings yet FC. The case is begining to build, brick by brick. The defence case is obvious at this point, George Floyd died of a drug overrdose.

From opening statements it was always going to come down to cause of death, and I don't think that has changed with evidence given to date, excluding todays evidence, obviously.

I do hope the prosecution has an iron clad case before they rest, clearly the defence do have a case to present to the jury, I just hope that it's done and dusted before then.

If you have been watching the trial FC, what do you make of the defence attorney, Eric Nelson? I think he is very unlikeable and he should have been reprimanded for his comment yesterday to the second paramedic "In the couse of your work have you attended other heroin overdoses, I apologise, in the course of your work have you attended heroin overdoses?"
He's not very good. Asking open questions and getting the answers he wouldn't want.
 
He's not very good. Asking open questions and getting the answers he wouldn't want.
He is one of the best bear, and here is why I think that:

Firstly you have to understand one thing about direct examination and cross examination in the US judicial system. The attorney doing the cross examination cannot ask any questions about a subject or event that has not been asked about in direct.

So for a really simple example, if Derek Chauvin takes the stand, which he will not, and under direct examination he is never asked whether he thinks or feels he directly led to the death of George Floyd, the prosecution cannot ask, "So Derek did you kill George?"

The Jury would not know why this question was not asked, and would make assumptions.

This is why the US system is adversarial, it is A trying to outhink B. It has very little to do with truth.

So knowing that, and considering that Eric Nelson is limited in what he can ask. You are right, he shouldn't ask questions like "What do you think about A?" and by and large he hasn't. When witnessess have offered more than was asked for he has objected, as unresponsive and been sustained AND had the record amended.(unresponsive means they offered information that wasn't asked for)

Whilst I dislike the man, he is doing a terrific job during the posecution case of sowing some seeds of doubt.
 
An update on day 4, which I didn't watch all the way through yesterday.a couple of salient points.

First off BoroMart we cannot put to bed whether Chauvin and the other officers involved held George Floyd down too long. After the in limine hearing the defence made it clear that Ploeger, the captain on duty, who gave the opinion, that restraint should have ended had not reviewed ALL the evidence. It doesn't matter that he reviewed the pertinent evidence, the jury didn't hear that, they heard that his opinion was based on partial evicence.

The seoncd thing the defence managed to do was muddy the waters because Chauvin wasn't the arresting officer, it wasn't clear but I believe it was King.
 
If he gets off then the law there is a joke
And his not mentioning he'd kneeled on him when calling it in....did he not see the people filming it on their phones?
Arrogance or stupidity
Not sure what you mean TC? If you clarify I will try and answe it the best I can.
 
There will also be evidence that it had nothing to do with being knelt on and that Floyd's heart could give out at any time.
I'm not sure where such evidence could come from, unless there are some unpublished medical reports no-one has reported on yet.

There is absolutely no doubt that Chauvin was kneeling on Floyd's neck and both the County Medical Examiner's report and the findings of the independent examiner hired by Floyd's family say that this was at least a contributory factor.

The independent examiner said the cause of death was "asphyxiation from sustained pressure" and although the CME's report somewhat confusingly says the cause of death was "cardiopulmonary arrest" (ALL deaths are ultimately from cardiac arrest) it also says that this cause of death was complicated by "law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression."

So I don't see where there's going to be any evidence that Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck had nothing to do with his death, all there is as far as I'm concerned, is a question as to what extent it contributed.
 
I think the big defence card will be the footage of Floyd saying ’i can’t breathe’ whilst stood by the police car and in the back seat without any pressure applied on his neck, which might be due to the drugs in his system. It is also thought there might be footage of him saying the same on previous arrests, like it’s something he says each time he gets arrested. Combine this with a toxicology report that shows he had enough drugs in his system to overdose, and the trial takes a massive twist. Although Chauvin will still be convicted, as anything other than homicide would see riots at a huge scale.
 
I'm not sure where such evidence could come from, unless there are some unpublished medical reports no-one has reported on yet.

There is absolutely no doubt that Chauvin was kneeling on Floyd's neck and both the County Medical Examiner's report and the findings of the independent examiner hired by Floyd's family say that this was at least a contributory factor.

The independent examiner said the cause of death was "asphyxiation from sustained pressure" and although the CME's report somewhat confusingly says the cause of death was "cardiopulmonary arrest" (ALL deaths are ultimately from cardiac arrest) it also says that this cause of death was complicated by "law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression."

So I don't see where there's going to be any evidence that Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck had nothing to do with his death, all there is as far as I'm concerned, is a question as to what extent it contributed.
I their opening statement defence said they will prove by way of a medical examiner that George Floyd died of heart arythmia. That evidence hasn't been presented yet and won't be until the defence present their case. I have no idea other than the opening statement what that evidence might be.
 
Damaging testimony today. Police lieutenant from Minneapolis Police Dept has testified that the knee on the neck was totally unjustified. That will nail Chauvin.
No it won't, the lieutenant had to admit on cross that he hadn't seen all the evidence. In totality was the phrase the defence used. In other words his opinion was based on only part of the evidence. It doesn't matter that he may have watched the pertinent 9 minutes. The prosecution screwed up by not addressing that on re direct, assuming Ploeger did in fact watch the pertinent 9 minutes.
 
I think the big defence card will be the footage of Floyd saying ’i can’t breathe’ whilst stood by the police car and in the back seat without any pressure applied on his neck, which might be due to the drugs in his system. It is also thought there might be footage of him saying the same on previous arrests, like it’s something he says each time he gets arrested. Combine this with a toxicology report that shows he had enough drugs in his system to overdose, and the trial takes a massive twist. Although Chauvin will still be convicted, as anything other than homicide would see riots at a huge scale.
That's a very good point. Not sure the defence will use it but they may well do. Nelson may well think that if he proves death was not a result of asphyxiation that may be enough for an acquittal.

I am hopeful that there are enough black people on the jury to get at least a hung jury. In that event I believe the da will push for a retrial in the hope the police federation will not pay for a second defence team for Chauvin. This trial has cost a million dollars for the defence.
 
Back
Top