(08-31-2020 07:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Also, I like how you quote the opinion about how high the fentanyl levels were, and then the next quote is “I am not saying this killed him.”
"[t]hat is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances".
Please argue more against that third party statement.
Quote:We already established that blood concentrations vary widely for ODs, you’ll see that in the previous conversation.
"[t]hat is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances". -- Chief Medical Examiner, Hennipen County, in conversations with prosecutors.
Please ague some more against that rather experienced opinion, why dont you.
Or perhaps you should note your qualifications (CV, research, blahbitty blah blah blah) that stack up agaisnt his, in this discussion.
Quote:There have been no contortions about this issue, only discussions of the facts and whether or not the evidence you present is conclusive. The arguments have generally been that they are not conclusive, kind of like how the doctor said “I am not saying this killed him,” immediately after noting the results.
Much of the contortions were your hammering of the test of the level based on testing very much later. That pretty much folded under your feet like a cheap suit with the particular timing.
Also, can you make a comment re: to "[t]hat is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances" and/or the statement of "AB [the Chief Hennepin County Medical Examiner Baker] said if Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he [Dr. Baker] would conclude that it was an overdose death."
From a legal perspective, both of these kind of make the prosecution's case problematic, at the very least (actually highly problematic) --- or is it your professional medical opinion that the above statement from the Chief Medical Examiner is erroneous? Or is it your professional legal opinion that the above in no way presents facts that underscore a lack of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?
I am not a medical professional, but I tend to take Dr Baker at a somewhat beyond idiot level there. Or do you know something aside from that that we should know?
I am a legal professional, and I do know the legal definition of what constitutes 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in Texas, and would hazard that the jury charge in WI isnt much difference. And when the Chief Medical Examiner says 'this was a fatal dose' *and* that had the death occurred at home it would be conclusory that this would be an overdose death, those kind of impact there.
But I look forward to your medical expertise denoting where in those memos you find the opposite.
Edited to add: just verified that the Minnesota standard of and pattern jury charge for 'beyond reasonable doubt' is the same as that for Texas.