Quote:
Originally Posted by this user was banned
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
How was their case weak? They had several medical professionals testify that the asphyxiation was the cause of death and ruled out pretty much everything else. How much of the trial did you watch?
|
Virtually everyone on planet earth will eventually die of asphyxiation. The question is WHAT CAUSED IT. The medical experts the prosecution called almost all contradicted each other one what actually caused the asphyxiation. When even the prosecution's own experts are contradicting each other, it's a giant truck load of reasonable doubt that any one of them has actually "got it right".
All but Baker rules out other contributing causes, such as high drug levels and serious heart disease. The fact these "experts" dismissed these things as having potentially contributed the "asphyxiation" would make any juror doubt everything that expert had to say, because those same experts on cross examination said that heart disease alone could have killed him and his drug levels alone could have exclusively killed him. But magically, they conclude, all had no effect on how he actually died. Baker and the defense expert witness disgreed and suggest that those other things did indeed play a part.
it's like a giant neon sign of reasonable doubt.
then you get to the Mens Rea issues specifically the murder charge, and it would be virtually impossible to find a non-biased jury come to the conclusion it was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. Essentially you'd have to believe that there is no doubt in your mind whatsoever that Chaucvin had intended to kill Floyds-- despite the fact he was being recorded by a dozen cameras 9which he knew full well were all on him).