Comments on: And now we can add witness coercion to the charges against the prosecution in the Floyd trials

By: JanMN

JanMN — Mon, 17 May 2021 20:16:17 +0000

Chauvin was imprisoned by politicians who either cravenly obeyed or eagerly embraced the lynch mob. The nationwide wave of relief following the verdict was telling, as was the sentiment expressed even by some who had hoped for acquittal that “the greater good” was achieved—lives were saved by the lack of provocation for bloody protests. It’s simple—the mob won. That’s what American justice is now.

By: Lee

Lee — Sun, 16 May 2021 21:28:44 +0000

agree completely with above.

By: LeClerc

LeClerc — Sun, 16 May 2021 17:22:33 +0000

Lynn at 1:06 pm above.

Expressed perfectly: Chauvin is a political prisoner.

By: Lynn

Lynn — Sun, 16 May 2021 17:06:07 +0000

I read earlier that Baker was coerced into changing his testimony but didn’t know why Nelson didn’t bring this up–think he wanted to stay on Baker’s good side to get him to say the “neck compression” did not cause the death–which he did. Had no influence on the jury though. They should call Mitchell to the stand now that this has been brought up and make him testify under oath.

Also, Federal case makes it easier for Supreme Court to come in. Also case of 14 years old makes it easier for Chauvin to say they should be suing the dept. for not sanctioning Chauvin, and to call whoever approved this use of force to testify as to why. If Chauvin is sentenced to any more than 20 years, which is already egregiously long when the worst he should have been convicted of is manslaughter, and the entire system is intimidated to give him an ounce of mercy, my suggestion would be for him to disappear to a country where there is no extradition or go into hiding like the 60s radicals. I don’t usually advocate that, but he is clearly a political prisoner. (I don’t know when that could happen unless some guards were enlisted to spirit him away and he somehow got over the border). It is a case of cruel and unusual punishment, especially if he will be in solitary confinement, and I know of no other case where a death in custody due to police restraint received any time at all. So much more animosity has been leveled at this one individual far in excess of what he did (or did not do)–defies logic, morality, and due process.

By: LeClerc

LeClerc — Sun, 16 May 2021 16:34:00 +0000

James Bowman sums things up well in the May issue of New Criterion.

By: Ray

Ray — Sun, 16 May 2021 13:33:56 +0000

well it’s easy to believe. Dr. Mitchell sent a letter concerning Dr. Fowler and his testimony to US Attorney General Merrick Garland, Director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention Rochelle Wollensky, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, and Director of the Maryland Department of Health Allison Taylor. In the letter, Dr. Mitchell asked for investigations into Fowler’s medical licensing and past work as a forensic pathologist. Less than 24 hours after the letter, the Maryland Attorney General’s Office initiated a review of all in-custody death reports produced while Dr. Fowler served as a Chief Medical Examiner in Maryland. Evidently Dr. Mitchell thinks he is a member of the prosecution.

By: AesopFan

AesopFan — Sun, 16 May 2021 05:45:17 +0000

I wonder why Thao has this alleged evidence, but Chauvin’s lawyer didn’t, as he surely would have presented it at the trial.

By: Yancey Ward

Yancey Ward — Sun, 16 May 2021 04:22:41 +0000

The charges being leveled are surprisingly detailed and explicit. This suggests to me that they have recordings or the direct testimony of Baker himself.

By: gmmay70

gmmay70 — Sun, 16 May 2021 02:34:19 +0000

“I’m somewhat confused as to how Mitchell, who was the Medical Examiner of Washington D.C., ended up on a phone call with Baker, who was the Chief Medical Examiner of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Does the DC examiner have some sort of power over all the medical examiners at the state level?”

Official power? No. Empowered by a phone call from an appointed official at the DoJ? Likely.

By: neo

neo — Sun, 16 May 2021 00:30:27 +0000

Kate:

If true, it probably would have more of an effect on the upcoming trial of the three officers, because appeals have a higher bar for reversal than the presumption of innocence in an initial trial. In an appeal the presumptions are somewhat reversed.