More objective than one might think?

This is from the local Star Tribune

Literally describing the competing testimony in their headlines

From the NY Times:

In most murder cases, the local medical examiner who performed the autopsy is a star prosecution witness, the most authoritative voice on the victim’s cause of death. But in the trial of Mr. Chauvin, prosecutors have regarded Dr. Baker as perhaps their most problematic witness — and possibly one who could help the defense raise reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors.

Throughout the investigation Dr. Baker has made statements that the prosecutors regarded as minimizing the impact of Mr. Chauvin’s use of force. He has said that if Mr. Floyd’s body had been found at home, his death could have been attributed to a drug overdose, and that he was unable to say whether Mr. Floyd would have died were it not for his encounter with the police.

Mr. Chauvin’s lawyer, Eric J. Nelson, seemed to score some points for the argument that he had been advancing throughout the trial, that Mr. Floyd's poor health, drug use and resistance to arrest led to his death.

Even the Washington Post got in on the act

Eric Nelson, Chauvin’s attorney, asked whether the placement of his client’s knee would have “anatomically cut off” Floyd’s airway. Baker responded, “In my opinion, it would not.”

At one point, Baker discussed a video call he had with law enforcement officials from the Justice Department, recounting that he told them: “It was the stress of that interaction [with police] that tipped him over the edge.”

Now granted, you had to read the whole story to get to these portions and the NYT and WaPo headlines were certainly written in a manner that pushes the narrative that the case is going well for the prosecution, but the stories themselves at least offered some of what might be considered favorable to the defense. Much of what I am reading on Yahoo or AP is offering almost nothing but the reason the prosecution called on a witness. As if the just the existence of a witness and an intention to help the prosecution is all you need.

But all in all, the Star and Tribune is at least offering to readers that the prosecution's case has some disagreement between their witnesses, and both the NYT and WaPo stories offered up some of the testimony that was actually quite harmful for the prosecution. Certainly the medical examiner was always going to be a problem, because ultimately he is the one who actually got to examine the body first hand (prior to watching any videos) and that makes his opinion the most objective. None of the other witnesses that the State can put forward will have that same perspective. They are basically guessing and guessing based almost entirely on what Baker has already written. 

So when the original medical examiner states that the underlying health conditions that he saw in his autopsy were major contributing factors in the death, as was the Fentanyl; that undercuts several of the States witnesses who are making a different assessment.  When the medical examiner who examined the body says there was no signs of any part of Floyd's airways being cut off, and that his opinion is that the Chauvin knee did not cut any air supply off, that is the most qualified person to understand his own autopsy disagreeing with another "expert" who is working off a theory. 

Bottom line: The Medical examiner is the man who examined the body first hand, and he is disagreeing with those who did not complete any personal examinations of Floyd. I mean, who should you believe? The man who based his conclusions on a direct examination or the people basing conclusions by reading what he wrote?

Make no mistake, these disagreements coming from the Medical examiner are very damaging.