Maryland reviews cases by medical examiner who testified in Chauvin’s defense

T. A. Gardner said:
I'd say you are wrong. Why the sudden investigation right after he testifies for the defense in the Chauvin trial? The guy is retired from that position. The the scope of the investigation is all cases involving him. In other words, they don't have any specific evidence of a problem in a specific case. That indicates it's a 'fishing expedition.' That is, they are hoping to find something somewhere in this guy's case history to smear and discredit him with.

All that says politically motivated.
Click to expand...

He showed who he is at this trial. He was way off. His testimony was crap. It is logical to see if he was as bad at other trials. His weirdness may have put innocent people in jail.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I'd say you are wrong. Why the sudden investigation right after he testifies for the defense in the Chauvin trial? The guy is retired from that position. The the scope of the investigation is all cases involving him. In other words, they don't have any specific evidence of a problem in a specific case. That indicates it's a 'fishing expedition.' That is, they are hoping to find something somewhere in this guy's case history to smear and discredit him with.

All that says politically motivated.
Click to expand...
I've already posted a link. All you have to do is read it.
 
Nordberg said:
He showed who he is at this trial. He was way off. His testimony was crap. It is logical to see if he was as bad at other trials. His weirdness may have put innocent people in jail.
Click to expand...
Actually, he was already being investigated for previous cases when he was on the witness stand in THIS trial. I seem to remember a judge ruling that such information wasn't pertinent.
 
Grumpy said:
.


Possibly ... but, most likely WON'T happen

But YOU definately need to answer the question about how many rounds were needed if YOU were going to be on the receiving end of that knife. And spare me the tripe answer now that you are blessed with 20/20 HINDSIGHT. The question is about how at THAT MOMENT IN TIME would YOU want the cop to shoot.

Today ... EVERYBODY is an armchair 20/20 hindsight judge.

The cop 'DONE GOOD' ... as my grandad would say.
Click to expand...
Not sure what your issue is here? One shot in the ass would do the job.

To your hypothetical, if someone came at ME with a knife, there would be no need for any shots.
 
Darth Omar said:
Just asked a simple question, it wasn’t a comment.

Apparently no one is comfortable in answering it. No biggie.
Click to expand...
Again. It's like walking up to a group in the middle of a discussion that you know nothing about. You think they're going to lay the foundation for you just so you can join in?

No. You don't belong in the discussion if you don't understand it.
 
.
Assuming the investigation shows that said "expert" was really incompetent ... would that be a factor in a request for either a new trial or an appeal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top