Minneapolis, Minn. — If you’ve paid any attention to the first week of testimony during the trial of Derek Chauvin, It’s hard to not see some glaring problems for the prosecution. The evidence pouring out each day like a firehose is quite different from the propaganda that the media and officials have been feeding to the public over the last several months. And the difference in what the public has been told—and the actual truth—poses a significant problem for the prosecution and for the prejudiced expectations of “justice” among the general public.
Yet the most damaging evidence so far seems to be the official autopsy conducted by Chief Medical Examiner Andrew Baker. Specifically, the autopsy did not conclude that Floyd died from asphyxiation. Instead, it found “cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s)” as the cause of death. And even state’s criminal complaint against Chauvin stated that the autopsy “revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease.”
In the opening statement, the prosecutor showed his hand and revealed how the state plans to effectively convince the jury to ignore this medical evidence. Special prosecutor Jerry Blackwell admitted to jurors that Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker pointed to cardiac arrest as Floyd’s cause of death. However, Blackwell insisted the state would prove that Floyd’s death was somehow—beyond any reasonable doubt—“… not a fatal heart event,” but asphyxiation.
Baker conducted the only full autopsy. And his expert opinion defies what the prosecution must prove for a conviction. More importantly, it is important to note that in many ways, the prosecutor is telling the jury to ignore the medical examiner’s testimony—while demanding that they listen to various “experts” the prosecution plans to call instead. Never mind a confused legal strategy, this is a risky maneuver of common sense especially considering how the preponderance of evidence in a criminal trial is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
And while many people are already demanding a “guilty” verdict and making threats if there isn’t one, there are some key pieces of evidence that must be mitigated to establish Chauvin’s guilt—beyond a reasonable doubt:
Further, Baker, the medical examiner, met last December with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office. Baker specifically noted that the knee restraint was not likely to produce asphyxiation: “[I]t appeared to Dr. Baker that the pressure to the neck was coming from the back or posterior lateral portions of the back, and none of these strictures would impact breathing or cause loss of consciousness,” as indicated in a documented summary of the meeting. He noted a study that found that placing 200 pounds of weight or more on a healthy person did not have an “observable impact on breathing.”
Baker also cited the drugs in Floyd’s system as well as the 75-80% narrowing of coronary arteries that “put him at risk for a sudden cardiac arrest.”
The record of the meeting states “Dr. Baker offered that one possibility for the pathway of Floyd’s death is that Floyd’s heart was starting to fail because of the stress, drugs, enlarged heart, and [heart] disease… He said that once the heart starts to fail … one of the symptoms is the perception that you cannot breathe.”
Unfortunately, in a world of mob rule and cancel culture, Baker has already paid a price for his honesty. After the notes of that meeting became public, he needed protective security due to threats made against him.
Indeed, the prosecution has a real problem with the Medical Examiner Andrew Baker, his findings, and his testimony.
As Jason Simoneau, a long-time homicide detective, explained, “medical examiners are political, but they will never lie in court.”
Baker is not lying. And that presents all sorts of problems for the prosecution and plenty of reasonable doubt.
