Race

nsacpi said:
F_vyGpBWMAAGveO
Click to expand...

"During her deposition, Sweasy also discussed a revealing conversation she said she had the day after Floyd’s death when she asked Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker about the autopsy.

“I called Dr. Baker early that morning to tell him about the case and to ask him if he would perform the autopsy on Mr. Floyd,” she explained.

“He called me later in the day on that Tuesday and he told me that there were no medical findings that showed any injury to the vital structures of Mr. Floyd’s neck. There were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation,” Sweasy said, according to the transcript.

“He said to me, ‘Amy, what happens when the actual evidence doesn’t match up with the public narrative that everyone’s already decided on?’ And then he said, ‘This is the kind of case that ends careers.’”'
 
Supreme Court just declined to review Chauvin's conviction. As y'all noted they probably scared. Just another DC jury.
 
nsacpi said:
Supreme Court just declined to review Chauvin's conviction. As y'all noted they probably scared. Just another DC jury.
Click to expand...

Only in regards to whether the jury was tainted. They probably are scared since we know the FBI won't protect the SCOTUS and we all know the dems will burn our cities again.

It really is amazing how you still buy into the Chauvin stuff with all of the evidence we've seen. You're completely incapable of shaking the gaslighting regardless of the evidence.
 
Last edited:
Between that and taking the black lady off the pancake box, I'm not sure what's taking so long for the healing to begin

[Tw]1728816084373966971[/tw]
 
Garmel said:
"During her deposition, Sweasy also discussed a revealing conversation she said she had the day after Floyd’s death when she asked Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker about the autopsy.

“I called Dr. Baker early that morning to tell him about the case and to ask him if he would perform the autopsy on Mr. Floyd,” she explained.

“He called me later in the day on that Tuesday and he told me that there were no medical findings that showed any injury to the vital structures of Mr. Floyd’s neck. There were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation,” Sweasy said, according to the transcript.

“He said to me, ‘Amy, what happens when the actual evidence doesn’t match up with the public narrative that everyone’s already decided on?’ And then he said, ‘This is the kind of case that ends careers.’”'
Click to expand...



As I have pointed out, autopsy reports are often politicized to get a specific result that someone wants. Usually to protect cops.
 
Garmel said:
This wasn't in the report. This is a private conversation.
Click to expand...


The part about no structural damage and no indication of strangulation or asphyxiation wasn't in the report or the private conversation? I don't know why a private conversation would be included in the report? Was the autopsy report about no strangulation death used as evidence in the trial? I would have voted not guilty if that's the evidence given, even though I don't trust the state coroner you can only go by the evidence given.
 
Of course he can’t - what happened here was clear as day but idiots will still think chauvin killed the POS Floyd.
 
Tapate50 said:
Can you prove this autopsy was politicized ?
Click to expand...

Garmel already posted a private conversation showing politics was taken into account by the coroner. If theres a state coroner and an independent coroner report I will go with the independent coroner 9 times out of 10.
 
Tapate50 said:
So can you prove it’s biased or incorrect?
Click to expand...


Why would I need to prove something I didnt say in the first place? I said I find state coroner reports suspect in officer involved deaths because they are often politicized to protect the cop. What part of that says that the autopsy was 100% certainly definitely I would bet my first born on it politicized?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top