*Internal screaming*

Every reputable and credible forensic pathologist and toxicologist has issues with this "reporting."

A thread, as the kids say. https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1298413074999894018

First, forensic toxicology, or any part of a medico-legal death investigation, can not be done in a vacuum. I made this for death investigation talks. It's like the fire triangle: heat, fuel, air. To determine a cause of death we need: Investigation, Pathology, and Toxicology.

Second, yes, George Floyd had illicit fentanyl in his blood (the methamphetamine is so trivial a lot of labs wouldn't even bother confirming or reporting it). No one is disputing this, nor should they.

Was it fatal? LOL, no. He was walking and talking not dead on a couch.

I'm constantly saying that people use drugs every day and don't die. The guy driving the car beside you on the highway? The person behind you at the supermarket? They could have used fentanyl recently, too.

The number of deaths compared to total doses on the street is minuscule.

The quotes from Dr. Baker: "That is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances" and "if...there were no
other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death."

Key words here: "normal circumstances" and "no other contributing factors."

"Normal circumstance" is not multiple officers with knees on your neck.

Could it have been fatal? Sure, if the investigation and autopsy support it - remember the triangle?

If there is a drug history or drug paraphernalia found in the home, and he's dead on the couch, last seen snoring loudly, he's got a foam cone and pulmonary edema, and no other competing cause of death (i.e. gunshot wounds, etc.), then yeah, it would likely be the cause of death.

But what about in relation to *this* case?

Well, lawyers love, love, love "but for" questions and I hate, hate, hate them. They will ask "But for the fentanyl would George be alive today?" (If it weren't for the fentanyl...) They essentially want to pin the death on the fentanyl

They want to portray the fentanyl as what pushed him over the edge towards death. You see this questioning by the defense in drug deaths where they charge the dealers for murder: "But for the Xanax prescribed by his doctor, would so-and-so be alive today?"

I'm here to say that no reputable forensic pathologist or toxicologist can possibly answer these questions.

What can we say? "But for" the neck compression and restraint, George would be alive. He was walking. Talking. Breathing. He was alive up until the knees on his neck.

"But, but, but," they'll say, "what about fentanyl and respiratory and central nervous system depression?"

Yes, that's a real thing. But he was walking. Talking. Breathing. In no obvious distress. Until officers put their knees on his neck and ignored his pleas, that is.

Do you see where this is going and why it's such a stupid argument?

It's not my fault I hit the guy with my car, even though I was driving 55 in a 25, if he was in better physical shape he could have moved out of the way.

So don't fall for fools like Matt Walsh and others that want to victim blame - blame George or his drug use.

No reputable forensic pathologist or toxicologist can say that George would be alive today if not for the fentanyl. Anyone that does should be ignored.

/