Friday, December 20, 2024
Floyd autopsy altered by political pressure
Sweasy, for one, knew how he did not die. As she revealed in her deposition, Sweasy spoke with Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker the day after Floyd's death.
"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.
As I reported on these pages in August 2021, an exhibit surfaced in the case of Chauvin colleague Tou Thao that should have resulted in a new trial for Chauvin and the release of Thao and the other two arrested officers, Thomas Lane and Alexander Kueng.
The exhibit, a memorandum, was that powerful. It memorialized a November 2020 conference between Dr. Roger Mitchell, former Washington D.C. chief medical examiner, and several prosecutors. Sweasy was not among the prosecutors present. Nor was Freeman. All but one were from the attorney general's office.
This should not surprise. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, whose affiliation with the Nation of Islam cost him a shot at becoming DNC Chair, kept a heavy hand on the case. "The AG taking over the Chauvin cases was difficult," said Senior Assistant County Attorney Judith Cole in her deposition in the Sweasy suit, "particularly when we had a governor who kind of threw us under the bus."
The memorandum detailed Mitchell's effort to coerce Baker into including neck compression in his diagnosis of Floyd's death. As noted above, Baker conducted an autopsy on Floyd on May 26, 2020, the day after Floyd's death. Baker reported that same day to the Hennepin County prosecutors, "The autopsy revealed no physical evidence suggesting that Mr. Floyd died of asphyxiation. Mr. Floyd did not exhibit signs of petechiae, damage to his airways or thyroid, brain bleeding, bone injuries, or internal bruising."
Three days later — Friday, May 29 — the state filed its initial complaint against Derek Chauvin. According to the complaint, "The full report of the [medical examiner] is pending but the [medical examiner] has made the following preliminary findings. The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation." Without a diagnosis of asphyxia, however, the state could not accuse Chauvin and the police officers of committing or abetting "Murder-2nd Degree." This is where Mitchell came into play.
A well-connected black political activist, Mitchell boasted of his involvement in Baker's diagnosis to the attorneys present. Their summary of that interaction reads in part:
When the preliminary result came out via the criminal complaint, Mitchell found the statement was bizarre. Mitchell was reading and said this is not right. So Mitchell called Baker and said first of all Baker should fire his public information officer. Then Mitchell asked what happened, because Mitchell didn't think it sounded like Baker's words. Baker said that he didn't think the neck compression played a part and that he didn't find petechiae. Mitchell said but you know you can not have petechiae and still have asphyxia and can still have neck compression.
Mitchell first called Baker on Friday, May 29. He "thought about it more that weekend" and on Monday he called Baker telling him he was about to send an op-ed to the Washington Post critical of Baker's findings. "In this conversation," the memorandum continued, "Mitchell said, you don't want to be the medical examiner who tells everyone they didn't see what they saw. You don't want to be the smartest person in the room and be wrong."
By that Monday cities across America had gone up in flames, none more ferociously than Minneapolis. The ever thoughtful Mitchell showed Baker a way out of the jam. According to the memorandum, "[Mitchell] said there was a way to articulate the cause and manner of death that ensures you are telling the truth about what you are observing on the body and via all of the investigation. Mitchell said neck compression has to be in the diagnosis."
Late on that same Monday, Baker's office sent out a press release that began, "Cause of death: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression." (Italics added). With a stroke of the pen and the complicity of the prosecutors, Baker turned four innocent cops into murderers and justified the self-destructive social revolution that followed.
"There was extreme premium pressure, yes. The city was burning down," Sweasy's former colleague Patrick Lofton said in his deposition. He and Sweasy withdrew from the cases against Lane, Kueng, and Thao on June 3, 2020, just a week after Floyd's death. They did not believe the three officers should be criminally charged. "I can tell you that everyone that I associate with to any degree, professionally or personally, agreed with our decision," Lofton testified. He described the pressure on the prosecutors as "insane."
Lofton wrote his letter of withdrawal, he said, "because I have to sleep at night." He and Sweasy might have slept better had they gone public with what they knew, namely that Chauvin and his colleagues were being tried for a crime they did not commit.
How did Floyd die? I asked my consultant on this case, John Dale Dunn, a veteran emergency physician and lawyer with expertise in matters of cause of death. Dunn is in a position to know. He wrote a chapter on forensic evidence for the American College of Legal Medicine. "Derrick Chauvin didn't kill Mr. Floyd," he told me. "His bad heart did." (READ More: The Semantic Burden of Speaking While White)
Dunn believes that Baker did an "assiduous and thorough autopsy." His findings, he argues, "did exonerate the police officers — there was no evidence of asphyxiation or strangulation, not any evidence of damage or compromise of the airway of breathing of Mr. Floyd from the prone restraint." In fact, Dunn made a video recreating the final minutes of Floyd's life. His conclusion, "The prone position restraint is not harmful or lethal."
There was, of course, evidence of methamphetamine and opiates in Floyd's system but not enough to kill. Floyd was a user. He had acclimated to fentanyl. There was compelling evidence, however, "that Mr. Floyd had three-vessel coronary artery disease of the heart" as well as an "enlarged heart from high blood pressure." The methamphetamine use increased the risk of Floyd having a sudden heartbeat regularity problem. "Mr. Floyd was upset and anxious," concludes Dunn. By resisting arrest, he set himself up for "sudden death from cardiac arrest, a sudden heart stoppage."
Chauvin Did Not Murder George Floyd - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Wednesday, December 18, 2024
RFK Jr. making case to Senators as polio vaccine questions linger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biltTSQKy8A
I think that Donald Trump recruited RFK Jr. to help him win the election. But RFK Jr. feels like a red herring. He says that he can make America healthy in four years. This would require government mandates. Although his heart might be in the right place, it has the potential to be authoritarian.
Maybe Trump knew that RFK Jr. would not get confirmed.
Tuesday, December 17, 2024
Monday, December 16, 2024
Best of: Blizzards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmOAQSofDnM
Most of the temperature records start in 1880 when reportedly we had better measurements.
The 1880s had some terrible and dangerous winters.
I saw another video claiming that we could get more snow this winter.
The Truth About The Mystery Drones
I don't want to read too much into this. I'm sure that the truth will come out.
FBI informants present on January 6??
There is a tendency on social media and among pundits and politicians to spin news to make it seem like much more than it really is.
Because the FBI had informants among the January 6th rioters doesn't mean that the FBI was encouraging or causing the January 6th riot, as the conspiracy theorists claim.
Likewise, the left spun this riot into an insurrection because they could use this to claim that Donald Trump would be ineligible to run for president. However, nobody was charged with insurrection, which is a felony. You can't really have an insurrection without arms. Some guards at the Captial Building waved people in, offering no resistance. Although the counting was delayed, order was restored and the counting resumed.
I understand the government punishing people who broke the law, but they have gone extreme with this, and there are many people imprisoned who probably should not be, including some seniors. This was the same year that Black Lives Matter riots did billions of dollars of damage, including some government buildings.
I am angry with the left who says that Donald Trump started or is responsible for an insurrection. Donald Trump very clearly told people to protest peacefully. Furthermore, there was evidence of trouble ahead of time, so Trump offered Pelosi National Guard protection which would have prevented all this, but she turned it down.
Sunday, December 15, 2024
Jordan Peterson: The Rationalists and Empiricists Have Lost
Jordan Peterson is a great intellectual public speaker who is often inciteful. However, he views truth in terms of psychological perception. He has no sense of absolute truth but views truth as subjective. I think that this is a form of Relativism. Followed to its logical extreme, a person could believe or rationalize anything.
In this regard, Jordan Peterson is not rational. It may be that most people view truth according to their subjective experiences, but regardless of what we perceive or want truth to be, truth doesn't care about our feelings. Ideas are either true or they are not.
Saturday, December 14, 2024
Wednesday, December 11, 2024
You Are Not Evil
0 seconds ago
Hank,
The data shows the temperature has taken 140 years to go up 1 degree Celsius.
This is relative to a dangerous and deadly cold period in the 1880's.
This slow rate of change shows that there is no climate emergency.
The current rate of change is at most 0.2 degrees per decade.
We will be running out of most fossil fuels by the year 2100.
Coal will be the last fossil fuel to go.
At the current level of usage, we only have 40 years of oil reserves remaining.
CO2 is a valuable resource.
It keeps the earth from freezing and it is plant food.
There is a greening of the earth because of it.
The CO2 level over the last 40 million years has been in a nose dive.
This is because calcifying marine organisms sequester CO2 (indirectly).
The CO2 level got so low during the last period of mass glaciation that it
reached 180 parts per million.
This is just barely above the 150 parts per million where all the terrestrial
plants die.
A funny thing happens to the climate roughly every 100,000 years.
The data shows that the temperature will quickly shoot up 8 to 15 degrees,
level off for 10,000 years, and then go back down almost as quickly.
Then we get 85 to 90 thousand years of mass glaciation where New York is covered
by ice.
We should already be in the cool-down cycle of the interglacial.
The only thing that has prevented the planet from cooling is those pesky humans
who added 150 parts per million CO2 into the atmosphere.
The infrared absorption range of CO2 is much narrower than other gasses like
water vapor, and it has already reached 90% of its absorption capacity.
Climate alarmism is dependent on as-of-yet unproven positive feedback models.
There are many feedbacks, some of which are negative.
There is much controversy over clouds, where common sense would indicate
negative feedback to temperature, but the IPCC says the opposite.
True science looks at data and then comes to a conclusion.
The IPCC does the opposite. They start with a conclusion and then support
that with evidence. The IPCC refused to hire anyone who did not already
believe in catastrophic man-made warming. This shows their bias. The IPCC
actively suppressed skeptical papers and tried to get skeptical scientists
fired. The head of U.N., António Guterres, was a Socialist Party politician
in Portugal, and he routinely makes outrageous statements about the climate
that are completely inaccurate.
Socialism is not palatable to the American people, so the socialists have been
pushing false crises to divide and conquer and to give us more government
control in incremental steps. I'm sorry that you have been duped by this mass
hysteria.
Best wishes,
John Coffey
Tuesday, December 10, 2024
Monday, December 9, 2024
Election 2028
---------- Forwarded message ---------
On Sun, Dec 8, 2024 at 11:42 PM Albert wrote:
The democratic "bench" is empty while the republicans' is full. Where will the Democratic Party find a presidential candidate who can defeat the republicans in 2028? I just can't find anyone for them at the moment.
I assume that no matter what happens there will be people who hate Trump's policies and there will be a backlash. People are more likely to vote because they are unhappy about something. A person can win the presidency by appealing to those voters.
Friday, December 6, 2024
Thursday, December 5, 2024
Sunday, December 1, 2024
Saturday, November 30, 2024
Friday, November 29, 2024
Wednesday, November 27, 2024
You Don’t Need Studies to Know “Gender-Affirming Care” Is Evil
I like this Matt Walsh episode better than most.
Tuesday, November 26, 2024
Monday, November 25, 2024
Sunday, November 24, 2024
Saturday, November 23, 2024
Friday, November 22, 2024
Thursday, November 21, 2024
We Are Still at War
'The key to understanding the revolutionary nature of the election may be a video by a little-known academic by the name of Brian Lozenski. In this video, Lozenski says, multiple times within the span of 80 seconds, that the goal of critical race theory (CRT) is to "overthrow" America.
Who is Brian Lozenski? He is a national leader in the CRT movement, the foremost authority on CRT in Minnesota and, most significantly, Tim Walz's most important education advisor. Lozenski is not on the fringes of Walz's administration but at its very center. Lozenski was the de facto leader of Walz's so-called "ethnic studies" curriculum ("ethnic studies" is, in effect, a new name for CRT), which is at the heart of Walz's education program.
Walz has been working diligently for years to embed ethnic studies in the curricula of all grades...
Under the new ethnic studies standards, Kersten reports, first-graders must "identify examples of ethnicity, equality, liberation and systems of power" and "use those examples to construct meanings for those terms." Fourth-graders must "examine how discrimination and the oppression of various racial and ethnic groups have produced resistance movements." High school students are taught to view themselves as members of "racialized hierarchies" based on "dominant European beauty standards." However "jargony," it is clear enough that these standards are intended to lead students to disdain America and join in the overthrow of their country.
If Lozenski is a revolutionary, and he incontestably is, then so is Walz. Walz was a very weak candidate. Moreover, he was to the Left of Harris — exactly what Harris, who was trying to tack to the center, did not need. But, odd as it may sound, Walz was chosen as Harris's running mate, not because he was the most likely to help her win — he clearly wasn't — but because he was the most ideologically compatible with her and the machine that ran her. It actually is not so odd if we keep in mind that the destructive Left, like all revolutionaries, is more concerned with maintaining ideological purity than winning. Likewise, Harris, who was far from the strongest Democrat, was also chosen because her views were most compatible with the revolutionary views of the machine that selected her.
What do we make of the fact that Harris chose as her running mate a man who wants to overthrow America? Could it be that she didn't know whom she was choosing? No, it couldn't be. She, and/or the machine that ran her, knows perfectly well Walz wants to overthrow America.'
Who is Brian Lozenski? He is a national leader in the CRT movement, the foremost authority on CRT in Minnesota and, most significantly, Tim Walz's most important education advisor. Lozenski is not on the fringes of Walz's administration but at its very center. Lozenski was the de facto leader of Walz's so-called "ethnic studies" curriculum ("ethnic studies" is, in effect, a new name for CRT), which is at the heart of Walz's education program.
Walz has been working diligently for years to embed ethnic studies in the curricula of all grades...
Under the new ethnic studies standards, Kersten reports, first-graders must "identify examples of ethnicity, equality, liberation and systems of power" and "use those examples to construct meanings for those terms." Fourth-graders must "examine how discrimination and the oppression of various racial and ethnic groups have produced resistance movements." High school students are taught to view themselves as members of "racialized hierarchies" based on "dominant European beauty standards." However "jargony," it is clear enough that these standards are intended to lead students to disdain America and join in the overthrow of their country.
If Lozenski is a revolutionary, and he incontestably is, then so is Walz. Walz was a very weak candidate. Moreover, he was to the Left of Harris — exactly what Harris, who was trying to tack to the center, did not need. But, odd as it may sound, Walz was chosen as Harris's running mate, not because he was the most likely to help her win — he clearly wasn't — but because he was the most ideologically compatible with her and the machine that ran her. It actually is not so odd if we keep in mind that the destructive Left, like all revolutionaries, is more concerned with maintaining ideological purity than winning. Likewise, Harris, who was far from the strongest Democrat, was also chosen because her views were most compatible with the revolutionary views of the machine that selected her.
What do we make of the fact that Harris chose as her running mate a man who wants to overthrow America? Could it be that she didn't know whom she was choosing? No, it couldn't be. She, and/or the machine that ran her, knows perfectly well Walz wants to overthrow America.'
Wednesday, November 20, 2024
The COLLAPSE Of The Elitists
The first 27 minutes is an interesting discussion on elitism.
Tuesday, November 19, 2024
The New Nuclear Age is Coming
This is all good if you want to live in a dictatorship. Were the regulations passed by Congress? How about the free market deciding which energy to use?
Most fossil fuels will run out by the year 2100. Coal will be the last fossil fuel to run out, and it is very likely that we will need it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)