ironpony wrote:
Oh okay, I guess I just feel that the testify of the pathologists was suspect, but you cleared it up more
.
I've been in a trial that involved an expert witness. They're usually quick to admit the shortcomings of their insights but both sides in the case tend to draw bigger conclusions than the expert is willing to agree to.
Off Topic
In my case the expert could conclude I had certain metabolites in my body but not whether or not those were proof of intoxication at the time I was detained. Defence used that and other factors as proof that I wasn't, Crown tried to insist that it was proof that I was despite no other supporting evidence. Expert was really blunt that she offered zero insight into whether or not I was intoxicated.
In this case pretty much every expert involved including the original one who's initial findings were used to sow misinformation has been consistent in stating they believe the death was homicide.
Experts concluding it was homicide isn't the same as them saying it was murder. Prior to the trial I made a big deal about this because I was making the case he was guilty but that wasn't an objective take that was a biased take to push an argument.
The experts only conclude if it was homicide or not, they don't say anything about whether or not it was criminal.
If the homicide was justified Chauvin would have walked but that case was made and rejected so they also tried to sow doubt over the cause. That's their job as defence attorneys but it doesn't mean they're raising a valid concern, they're just grasping at the best explanation to spare their client which is what they've been paid to do.
_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う