Third Thoughts on Chauvin and Floyd

I have been assuming that asphyxiation always shows up as such in autopsies. If that's false, then we can't conclude from what we've been told about Floyd's autopsy that Chauvin didn't kill him. So now I think I was wrong about that. We'd have to know facts about autopsies that I, anyway, don't know.

   What we can know is that the investigation was not objective. It was subject to political pressure, and the original medical examination report was changed in response to that pressure. What we--or I, at any rate--don't know is whether the medical examiner is permitted to take other information into account--e.g. the video of the arrest. And, of course, what reasonable conclusions can be drawn from whatever information the medical examiner is permitted to consider. I was assuming that the M.E. wasn't permitted to take such collateral information into account. That is, I was assuming that the M.E. is supposed to tell us only what he can infer from the condition of the body of the decedent. That could easily be false.

   The general situation is as many of us thought all along--that pretty much no one was going to say or do anything to put them at odds with the spasm of anger and indignation that was consequent on the video. And what we seem to have learned is: that's exactly what happened. 

   Per the testimony of former Hennepin County prosecutor Amy Sweasy:

“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,” said Sweasy under oath. “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 added.
By day two, Baker knew the risks involved in telling the truth. Sweasy continued, “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.’” Although Sweasy knows very well why Baker altered his diagnosis, Carlson may not. This story bears retelling in the light of Sweasy’s unwitting confirmation.

There was, of course, a second autopsy. It concluded that Floyd did die of asphyxiation. But it was commissioned and paid for by Floyd's family. So that's a separate can of worms.

   Some modest conclusions: we have strong reason to doubt that Chauvin killed Floyd. We also have good reason to doubt that Chauvin received a fair trial. Needless to say, both of these conclusions are compatible with the proposition that Chauvin killed Floyd.