If there were ever a more clear picture of political bias in news, I haven't seen it compared to these tweets and headlines.

Hawg do you think she will read her (i.e. the prosecution's) statement this time?

rausr said:

---

Hawg do you think she will read her (i.e. the prosecution's) statement this time?

---

It's her prior statement to law enforcement. She has already contradicted that. But the judge was clear that she was required to read it.

Now. the question becomes will she? And will she have answers for those inconsistencies?

aggiehawg said:

---

rausr said:

---

Hawg do you think she will read her (i.e. the prosecution's) statement this time?

---

It's her prior statement to law enforcement. She has already contradicted that. But the judge was clear that she was required to read it.

Now. the question becomes will she? And will she have answers for those inconsistencies?

---

I watched her X, but don't recall where she contradicted herself other than the size and build of Floyd. Where else did she flub? Has she reached the point where her testimony can be thrown out?

In her statement she said there was a "heavy crowd" but she tried to walk that back today.

Ah didn't catch that part. Why would someone try contradicting themselves? There's record of you saying it!
Edit: sounds like a very dumb/foolish thing to attempt.

Dumb_Loggy said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

rausr said:

---

Hawg do you think she will read her (i.e. the prosecution's) statement this time?

---

It's her prior statement to law enforcement. She has already contradicted that. But the judge was clear that she was required to read it.

Now. the question becomes will she? And will she have answers for those inconsistencies?

---

I watched her X, but don't recall where she contradicted herself other than the size and build of Floyd. Where else did she flub? Has she reached the point where her testimony can be thrown out?

---

You are several different questions here. Her testimony will not get thrown by the judge.

The size and build of Floyd was just at the beginning of cross, maybe midway, don't know what Nelson has and how long he'll go.

Her direct exam opened some gaping holes which Nelson can exploit, in my view.

Que Te Gusta Mas said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

This is what I was alluding to. They should have found this baggie in his stomach. If they didn't then the video is worthless.

---

What baggie? He had the pills in his mouth. They were either consumed and dissolved in the 10-15 minute period between consumption and loss of consciousness or they were spit out after he had them in his mouth for ~5 minutes. I assume some would have dissolved in his mouth as well.

This amount was consumed after he had been described as being "extremely drunk" and "not in control of himself" by the store clerk to 911. Floyd spent 10 minutes before police arrived passed out at the steering while his buddies tried their best to wake him up so they could leave the scene.

When police arrived, he was already intoxicated on something, and there wasn't another drug in his system that would explain the intoxication other than fentanyl. In his condition, consuming more fentanyl was more than likely fatal; thus, the fentanyl blood level above the median lethal dose. Considering he'd done the exact same thing 12-months prior, which resulted in him being rushed to the ER to save his life, it's fairly easy to speculate this was the reason for his hysterical behavior and repeated certainty of his own demise.

---

Ding! Ding! Ding!
I'm pretty sure this is the direction the defense will go with this case.
Hawg (or other): how did the judge rule regarding admission of the video from Floyd's previous intoxication arrest, referenced above? If it's allowed, it will obviously be very damning to the prosecution.

Kool said:

---

Que Te Gusta Mas said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

This is what I was alluding to. They should have found this baggie in his stomach. If they didn't then the video is worthless.

---

What baggie? He had the pills in his mouth. They were either consumed and dissolved in the 10-15 minute period between consumption and loss of consciousness or they were spit out after he had them in his mouth for ~5 minutes. I assume some would have dissolved in his mouth as well.

This amount was consumed after he had been described as being "extremely drunk" and "not in control of himself" by the store clerk to 911. Floyd spent 10 minutes before police arrived passed out at the steering while his buddies tried their best to wake him up so they could leave the scene.

When police arrived, he was already intoxicated on something, and there wasn't another drug in his system that would explain the intoxication other than fentanyl. In his condition, consuming more fentanyl was more than likely fatal; thus, the fentanyl blood level above the median lethal dose. Considering he'd done the exact same thing 12-months prior, which resulted in him being rushed to the ER to save his life, it's fairly easy to speculate this was the reason for his hysterical behavior and repeated certainty of his own demise.

---

Ding! Ding! Ding!
I'm pretty sure this is the direction the defense will go with this case.
Hawg (or other): how did the judge rule regarding admission of the video from Floyd's previous intoxication arrest, referenced above? If it's allowed, it will obviously be very damning to the prosecution.

---

Limited use right now. But the prosecution is so inept because they have too many cooks in the kitchen and can't stay on point. I saw three four different prosecutors today. And none of them were there for pretrial.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

NPH- said:

---

real quick BourbonAg, whats a good cheap bourbon that I can go grab at the liquor store that will surprise me?

---

Buffalo Trace, if you can find it.

---

Found two bottles right away. A nice easy smooth taste. Could be a daily drinker for sure. On my second glass over a large ball of ice.

I don't want Chavin getting off on a "technicality ". If he is found not guilty, I hope it's because he followed legal police procedures and the cause of death was because of an OD. The video looks bad, but it's wrong to convict someone of murder if murder didn't happen.

Personally I think the cop might have been a bit excessive and a hard ass, but after the crap show he had to deal with before Floyd was taken down it is a little understandable. They tried to cuff him and put him in the car. That dude was high out of his mind. I'm sure that's almost impossible to deal with.

Hopefully the cop followed procedures and Floyd died from an OD. (Which I think it probably what happened). If that's what happened then I hope the defense does a good job protecting an innocent man.

aggiehawg said:

---

Kool said:

---

Que Te Gusta Mas said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

This is what I was alluding to. They should have found this baggie in his stomach. If they didn't then the video is worthless.

---

What baggie? He had the pills in his mouth. They were either consumed and dissolved in the 10-15 minute period between consumption and loss of consciousness or they were spit out after he had them in his mouth for ~5 minutes. I assume some would have dissolved in his mouth as well.

This amount was consumed after he had been described as being "extremely drunk" and "not in control of himself" by the store clerk to 911. Floyd spent 10 minutes before police arrived passed out at the steering while his buddies tried their best to wake him up so they could leave the scene.

When police arrived, he was already intoxicated on something, and there wasn't another drug in his system that would explain the intoxication other than fentanyl. In his condition, consuming more fentanyl was more than likely fatal; thus, the fentanyl blood level above the median lethal dose. Considering he'd done the exact same thing 12-months prior, which resulted in him being rushed to the ER to save his life, it's fairly easy to speculate this was the reason for his hysterical behavior and repeated certainty of his own demise.

---

Ding! Ding! Ding!
I'm pretty sure this is the direction the defense will go with this case.
Hawg (or other): how did the judge rule regarding admission of the video from Floyd's previous intoxication arrest, referenced above? If it's allowed, it will obviously be very damning to the prosecution.

---

Limited use right now. But the prosecution is so inept because they have too many cooks in the kitchen and can't stay on point. I saw three four different prosecutors today. And none of them were there for pretrial.

---

Thanks. Is having multiple cooks in the kitchen such a negative? I took a Med Mal case to trial years ago. Worst 6 days of my life. Won a unanimous verdict but it took years off of me. My attorney, who has since become a good friend, told me, "At the end of the day, it's really about who the jury believes". His closing arguments nearly brought me to tears. At the end of the day, will the defense be able to convince the jury that Chauvin's knee wasn't enough to kill a man much larger than Chauvin without Floyd being already compromised? If they can, and Chauvin doesn't come off as an *******, it's hard for me to see guilty verdicts being issued.

NPH- said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

NPH- said:

---

real quick BourbonAg, whats a good cheap bourbon that I can go grab at the liquor store that will surprise me?

---

Buffalo Trace, if you can find it.

---

Found two bottles right away. A nice easy smooth taste. Could be a daily drinker for sure. On my second glass over a large ball of ice.

---

Same distillery as Eagle Rare and Weller. Unfortunately everyone knows how good they are now.

Good Poster said:

---

If you search "Genevieve Hansen" you will see the idiots online praising her for her courage and bravery.

Christine Blasey Ford 2.0

---

It's become an unfortunate trend in today's world for the woke Twitter leftist mob to deify fools and liars and idolize criminals. This woman was a biased combative fool on the stand in a trial where the victim was a scumbag falsely raised by this same mob to sainthood.

Quote:

---

Thanks. Is having multiple cooks in the kitchen such a negative?

---

In a civil case, no.

A crim case is different as the relationship between the jury and the lawyers is much more stressed and important to them. Having rotating lawyers on the prosecution diverts from the narrative (their own witnesses have disputed asphyxiation as the cause of death) and jury trust is eroded or not established.

They all know Nelson. None of them know the prosecution lawyers from jury selection.

Anyone watching court tv during and after The firefighter? Curious as to how they could make her look good for the state like they did all the others

Quote:

---

Curious as to how they could make her look good for the state like they did all the others

---

They love her & show the prosecution questioning, her crying - they mention the cross by Nelson but don't delve into it too much. I haven't caught a replay of the Judge rebuke of her, but I'm not watching 24/7.

Court TV is very pro prosecution.

Seeing the "talents" bios on the app doesnt surprise me that they are showing pretty obvious bias. Wish there was one livestream that has commentary to better explain what's happening that wasn't so one sided for either side.

Readzilla said:

---

Seeing the "talents" bios on the app doesnt surprise me that they are showing pretty obvious bias. Wish there was one livestream that has commentary to better explain what's happening that wasn't so one sided for either side.

---

Why this jury should have been sequestered from the start, IMO.

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I wasn't around to watch the testimony this morning and so now I'm listening to the MMA guy's testimony.

Sometimes, he keeps looking to his right. Does anyone know who or what he looks at? Is he looking at the judge? Is he looking at the prosecutor?

---

He had some notes this morning. But if he's looking to his right and up, it's the judge. If he looking straight ahead and to the right, it's likely the prosecutors. Williams got them into trouble many times by offering opinions that he had been instructed not to express. He might have been looking to them to see if he could answer or if his answer was okay.

---

That could be. When he was definitely looking at the judge, though, it was more like the judge was slightly behind him.

I went back and found the spot. When the defense attorney asks "You called him a tough guy?", he looks to the right, but not as far as the judge. Again, when he asks "You called him a real man?" And then "You called him such a man?" "You called him bogus?" On this one he continued to look to the right, but not back at the judge, as he answers.

---

Edit: At the end of the day when the judge had finished with the woman who had taken a picture with her cell phone, it showed the arrangement of the lawyers and it is possible from that to infer the position of the judge and the witness. From this, it would appear as if the witness was probably looking over toward Chauvin each time.

Real edit: That was meant as an edit of my earlier post, not a reply. I'm not sure how I made that mistake.

Excusey ignorance, but how is she allowed to not read her own statement?

As someone said early in the thread this is OJ racism
type justice. But I think the guy is doomed. The medical evidence will cancel itself out. The death knell will be the video evidence and testimony. He's screwed.

The media and other talking heads from around the world are doing a good job thus far of framing this case as a trial of America. While this concept is benevolent it eliminates isolation of facts and reason from the case as primary sources of decisions. So, if he is convicted it will be seen as inevitable and predetermined by half or as justified by half. OR if acquitted it will be seen as evidence of racist America (core western state so used against western power by Sino and ME civilization) by half or as justified due process.

Either way we be fookrd.

WT 101 is in my regular rotation for sure.

D2F1D0 said:

---

The media and other talking heads from around the world are doing a good job thus far of framing this case as a trial of America. While this concept is benevolent it eliminates isolation of facts and reason from the case as primary sources of decisions. So, if he is convicted it will be seen as inevitable and predetermined by half or as justified by half. OR if acquitted it will be seen as evidence of racist America (core western state so used against western power by Sino and ME civilization) by half or as justified due process.

Either way we be fookrd.

---

Yep. This case and trial sucks no matter how you look at it. Most people don't know anything other than the video so if he is acquitted it'll be seen by most as just more evidence of how racist things are.

Summary of yesterday for those who may, again, not be paying close attention.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/03/chauvin-trial-day-2-wrap-up-state-focused-on-feelings-judge-scolds-firefighter/#more-348943

D2F1D0 said:

---

Excusey ignorance, but how is she allowed to not read her own statement?

---

It was offered to refresh her memory. If she declines, then she's more vulnerable to cross examination and it goes to the weight of the evidence. In other words, she isn't prevented from testifying based on her memory alone, but she looses credibility in the eyes of the jury, which is a defense win.

D2F1D0 said:

---

The media and other talking heads from around the world are doing a good job thus far of framing this case as a trial of America. While this concept is benevolent

---

i'm not following...

When do they start today?

MEENAGGIE09 said:

---

When do they start today?

---

judge said 9:30 yesterday, but court tv is still recapping yesterday.

ruddyduck said:

---

D2F1D0 said:

---

The media and other talking heads from around the world are doing a good job thus far of framing this case as a trial of America. While this concept is benevolent

---

i'm not following...

---

Benevolent means well-meaning or kindly.
Some talking heads discuss the trial as a test of due process and how the law carries evidence over mob pressure. Both sides talking heads are using this same argument because on the surface it is benevolent and relatively benign. Under the surface is where it gets an agenda.

Is there a new link for the Washington Post stream?

The courtTV commentators are too much.

Nevermind...

Stream Here

i know what benevolent means, was just having a hard time in the manner you used it.

thanks for the clarification.