Pulling this out of the others, since it seems to be mixed in liberally with the 'Left is Rioting' and '2020 Presidential Race'.

But some more fun and games. Last week there were a furry of motions, one of which came directly on the release of documents from Hennepin County.

Here is the one that kind of unloads a bombshell (or two)

http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/medi...282020.pdf

The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office released a memorandum of a meeting between prosecutors and Hennepin County’s Chief Medical Examiner.

First, notwithstanding lads and 93s contortions, the blood sample used in the toxicology report noted previously was not post-mortem. The sample taken was ante-mortem. Thus, the noted drugstore load of stuff in Floyd's system is far more accurate that the whirlwind that lad and 93 came up with (iirc, 'up to 9x more in a post mortem sample than indicated in the system at death' thingy that lad pinned onto that donkey tail).

In short, the ante-mortem blood tox is far more accurate that the whirlwind that lad presented.

Second, Chief Medical Examiner Baker noted that both: [the 11ng/l] "that's pretty high"; and the memo noted "[t]hat is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances".

Third, the memorandum said

Quote: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.

That is kind of a real problem for the prosecution at that point.

The toxicology report kind of shows Floyd was a walking drugstore.
https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepin...6-3-20.pdf

In addition to the 11ng/l of fentanyl, there are also 5.6 ng/l of metabolized fentanyl product -- indicating that the one needs to 'tack on' to the 11 ng above in some extent.

And the usual hash, marijuana, morphine, and methamphetamine loads.

Does antemortem mean something other than before death?

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.”

We already established that blood concentrations vary widely for ODs, you’ll see that in the previous conversation. 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.

(08-31-2020 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Does antemortem mean something other than before death?

I need to restate -- both antemortem and samples collected immediately after death. Not samples taken at the autopsy time.

(08-31-2020 07:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Does antemortem mean something other than before death?

I need to restate -- both antemortem and samples collected immediately after death. Not samples taken at the autopsy time.

What was the time difference between death and the blood being collected? The comment indicates it is better, but how much better? How closely to actual concentrations does this closer to life than autopsy (let’s call it early postmortem) than general postmortem samples? It still doesn’t sound like it is a surrogate for live blood samples, and you still have to deal with the issue RU brought up with dose response.

But big picture, does the evidence that Floyd was using narcotics at some point before he died do anything to show that the officer’s actions were not the most likely cause of death? Or are you just trying to provide a lawyer’s perspective of how the officer will be found not guilty?

(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.

(08-31-2020 07:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Does antemortem mean something other than before death?

I need to restate -- both antemortem and samples collected immediately after death. Not samples taken at the autopsy time.

What was the time difference between death and the blood being collected? The comment indicates it is better, but how much better? How closely to actual concentrations does this closer to life than autopsy (let’s call it early postmortem) than general postmortem samples? It still doesn’t sound like it is a surrogate for live blood samples, and you still have to deal with the issue RU brought up with dose response.

"[Dr. Baker] would conclude that it was an overdose death."

"[t]hat is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances".

--- Chief Medical Examiner, Hennepin County

Quote:But big picture, does the evidence that Floyd was using narcotics

'using narcotics' --- cute understatement in light of the facts there lad.

(08-31-2020 07:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

Who drew this guy’s blood before he died? Was he alive when the EMTs got there?

(08-31-2020 07:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

I feel like you don’t actually read and digest what I’ve written many times.

(08-31-2020 07:45 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

Who drew this guy’s blood before he died? Was he alive when the EMTs got there?

Why dont you latfl. (look at the fing link). Perhaps that info is there. And the answer to your last question is -- yes. Both per the news accounts and according to the various documents.

next try.

(08-31-2020 07:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Does antemortem mean something other than before death?

I need to restate -- both antemortem and samples collected immediately after death. Not samples taken at the autopsy time.

What was the time difference between death and the blood being collected? The comment indicates it is better, but how much better? How closely to actual concentrations does this closer to life than autopsy (let’s call it early postmortem) than general postmortem samples? It still doesn’t sound like it is a surrogate for live blood samples, and you still have to deal with the issue RU brought up with dose response.

"[Dr. Baker] would conclude that it was an overdose death."

"[t]hat is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances".

--- Chief Medical Examiner, Hennepin County

Quote:But big picture, does the evidence that Floyd was using narcotics

'using narcotics' --- cute understatement in light of the facts there lad.

Dr Baker literally said “I am not saying that this killed him.” You seem to argue like the guy you’re quoting wasn’t documented as saying that.

Again, my response has been focused on this evidence not being conclusive that the fentanyl was responsible, and clearly Baker feels like the same way.

You also leave out the direct quote that if he was found dead at home WITH NO OTHER APPARENT CAUSES this COULD be an OD. Notice how all of the language is couched in uncertainty - that’s what I’m advocating for, that the presence of fentanyl at these levels on postmortem blood samples isn’t sufficient to say Floyd OD’d, or that Chauvin’s actions didn’t kill Floyd.

Also, where in the written memo does the “this is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances” come up? The hand writing is a bit hard to read, but I don’t see it.

(08-31-2020 06:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Pulling this out of the others, since it seems to be mixed in liberally with the 'Left is Rioting' and '2020 Presidential Race'.

But some more fun and games. Last week there were a furry of motions, one of which came directly on the release of documents from Hennepin County.

Here is the one that kind of unloads a bombshell (or two)

http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/medi...282020.pdf

The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office released a memorandum of a meeting between prosecutors and Hennepin County’s Chief Medical Examiner.

First, notwithstanding lads and 93s contortions, the blood sample used in the toxicology report noted previously was not post-mortem. The sample taken was ante-mortem. Thus, the noted drugstore load of stuff in Floyd's system is far more accurate that the whirlwind that lad and 93 came up with (iirc, 'up to 9x more in a post mortem sample than indicated in the system at death' thingy that lad pinned onto that donkey tail).

In short, the ante-mortem blood tox is far more accurate that the whirlwind that lad presented.

Second, Chief Medical Examiner Baker noted that both: [the 11ng/l] "that's pretty high"; and the memo noted "[t]hat is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances".

Third, the memorandum said

Quote: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.

That is kind of a real problem for the prosecution at that point.

The toxicology report kind of shows Floyd was a walking drugstore.
https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepin...6-3-20.pdf

In addition to the 11ng/l of fentanyl, there are also 5.6 ng/l of metabolized fentanyl product -- indicating that the one needs to 'tack on' to the 11 ng above in some extent.

And the usual hash, marijuana, morphine, and methamphetamine loads.

To the bold, that is NOT what the Witness Contact Form says. Even with the bad hand writing, it clearly says "if he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this COULD be acceptable to call an OD."

There is a big difference there than saying Baker WOULD have concluded it was an OD.

(08-31-2020 08:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 06:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Pulling this out of the others, since it seems to be mixed in liberally with the 'Left is Rioting' and '2020 Presidential Race'.

But some more fun and games. Last week there were a furry of motions, one of which came directly on the release of documents from Hennepin County.

Here is the one that kind of unloads a bombshell (or two)

http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/medi...282020.pdf

The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office released a memorandum of a meeting between prosecutors and Hennepin County’s Chief Medical Examiner.

First, notwithstanding lads and 93s contortions, the blood sample used in the toxicology report noted previously was not post-mortem. The sample taken was ante-mortem. Thus, the noted drugstore load of stuff in Floyd's system is far more accurate that the whirlwind that lad and 93 came up with (iirc, 'up to 9x more in a post mortem sample than indicated in the system at death' thingy that lad pinned onto that donkey tail).

In short, the ante-mortem blood tox is far more accurate that the whirlwind that lad presented.

Second, Chief Medical Examiner Baker noted that both: [the 11ng/l] "that's pretty high"; and the memo noted "[t]hat is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances".

Third, the memorandum said

Quote: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.

That is kind of a real problem for the prosecution at that point.

The toxicology report kind of shows Floyd was a walking drugstore.
https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepin...6-3-20.pdf

In addition to the 11ng/l of fentanyl, there are also 5.6 ng/l of metabolized fentanyl product -- indicating that the one needs to 'tack on' to the 11 ng above in some extent.

And the usual hash, marijuana, morphine, and methamphetamine loads.

To the bold, that is NOT what the Witness Contact Form says.

The filing absolutely and unequivocally states the Chief Medical Examiner stating precisely what I denote.

To the bold, keep reading.

Quote: Even with the bad hand writing, it clearly says "if he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this COULD be acceptable to call an OD."

There is a big difference there than saying Baker WOULD have concluded it was an OD.

Read further, lad. I am using pretty much direct quotes. But please fixate on the non-germane portions of the filing while jumping up and down and waving your arms.

(08-31-2020 07:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:45 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

Who drew this guy’s blood before he died? Was he alive when the EMTs got there?

Why dont you latfl. (look at the fing link). Perhaps that info is there. And the answer to your last question is -- yes. Both per the news accounts and according to the various documents.

next try.

A memo at the end of the documents indicates that the blood samples were collected at the hospital, but does not indicate whether or not Floyd was alive when they were collected.

Given what I've read, Floyd was likely dead well before he got to the hospital.

Reading this memo against the hand written notes makes it unclear what Baker (medical examiner) actually said, versus what was editorialized by the lawyers.

(08-31-2020 07:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You also leave out the direct quote that if he was found dead at home WITH NO OTHER APPARENT CAUSES this COULD be an OD.

Baker denotes the actual word *would* in the filing. I suggest *you* stop changing the language quoted.

Quote:Notice how all of the language is couched in uncertainty

'Would' denotes a fairly decent of certainty. Quite a bit more than the word 'could' that you plopped down in there. Funny that.

(08-31-2020 08:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You also leave out the direct quote that if he was found dead at home WITH NO OTHER APPARENT CAUSES this COULD be an OD.

Baker denotes the actual word *would* in the filing. I suggest *you* stop changing the language quoted.

Quote:Notice how all of the language is couched in uncertainty

'Would' denotes a fairly decent of certainty. Quite a bit more than the word 'could' that you plopped down in there. Funny that.

Did Baker file the memo, or did the lawyer?

Maybe you'll believe what I'm saying if a different source, one closer to your heart, makes the same argument.

From the National Review:

Quote:However, the documents also include handwritten notes from a meeting the following day that present Baker’s analysis somewhat differently:
"Fentanyl at 11 ng/ml — this is higher than chronic pain patient. If he were found dead at home alone & no other apparent cause, this could be acceptable to call an OD. Deaths have been certified w/ levels of 3."
I imagine that Baker will be asked to reconcile these versions of his thoughts — “fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances” vs. “could be acceptable to call an OD . . . I am not saying this killed him” — and explain in detail how his office concluded the death was a homicide.

A third document backs this conclusion, however. It’s from the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System, which the federal Department of Justice asked to review the official autopsy. In short, the feds agree that the police restraint caused the death, though of course Floyd’s intoxication and health problems contributed:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ne...loyd-case/

(08-31-2020 08:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:45 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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.

Who drew this guy’s blood before he died? Was he alive when the EMTs got there?

Why dont you latfl. (look at the fing link). Perhaps that info is there. And the answer to your last question is -- yes. Both per the news accounts and according to the various documents.

next try.

A memo at the end of the documents indicates that the blood samples were collected at the hospital, but does not indicate whether or not Floyd was alive when they were collected.

There is a readily available document that denotes his TOD. Use it. The compare the sample times to that. Sounds kind of simple. Simple enough that I did it.

Quote:Given what I've read, Floyd was likely dead well before he got to the hospital.

See the above.

Quote:Reading this memo against the hand written notes makes it unclear what Baker (medical examiner) actually said, versus what was editorialized by the lawyers.

I have quoted precisely what the prosecutors themselves denote what Dr Baker told them after the tox results were in and Dr Baker reviewed them.

So no, it is *not* at all unclear in the slightest what the documents themselves say. I have quoted them fairly directly (and the only alterations are in brackets).

I am horribly sorry that you cannot see what is specifically typed in the notes there -- but you keep making stuff up to insert into it.

(08-31-2020 08:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You also leave out the direct quote that if he was found dead at home WITH NO OTHER APPARENT CAUSES this COULD be an OD.

Baker denotes the actual word *would* in the filing. I suggest *you* stop changing the language quoted.

Quote:Notice how all of the language is couched in uncertainty

'Would' denotes a fairly decent of certainty. Quite a bit more than the word 'could' that you plopped down in there. Funny that.

Did Baker file the memo, or did the lawyer?

Lawyer detailing her conversation with Baker. Again, rtfd.

(08-31-2020 08:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 08:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:45 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 07:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  "[t]hat is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances".

Please argue more against that third party statement.


"[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.


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.

Who drew this guy’s blood before he died? Was he alive when the EMTs got there?

Why dont you latfl. (look at the fing link). Perhaps that info is there. And the answer to your last question is -- yes. Both per the news accounts and according to the various documents.

next try.

A memo at the end of the documents indicates that the blood samples were collected at the hospital, but does not indicate whether or not Floyd was alive when they were collected.

There is a readily available document that denotes his TOD. Use it. The compare the sample times to that. Sounds kind of simple. Simple enough that I did it.

Quote:Given what I've read, Floyd was likely dead well before he got to the hospital.

See the above.

Quote:Reading this memo against the hand written notes makes it unclear what Baker (medical examiner) actually said, versus what was editorialized by the lawyers.

I have quoted precisely what the prosecutors themselves denote what Dr Baker told them after the tox results were in and Dr Baker reviewed them.

So no, it is *not* at all unclear in the slightest what the documents themselves say. I have quoted them fairly directly (and the only alterations are in brackets).

I am horribly sorry that you cannot see what is specifically typed in the notes there -- but you keep making stuff up to insert into it.

They did not quote Baker in the memo, and clearly the hand written note says "could" vs "would."

So someone misquoted Baker then - either during note taking or writing the memo. I would think that notes, not a memo after the fact, would be the more accurate record of what was said.

Am I incorrect?

As to time of death, I looked that up - the coroner lists it as 9:25 PM and the sample was collected at 9:00 PM. Video evidence shows Floyd motionless as of 8:27 PM. So was Floyd still living at breathing at the time of collection, or just not pronounced as dead?

It would be very interesting to see the change in fentanyl concentrations between the two blood samples collected.