What Killed George Floyd?

Written by John Leake on October 27, 2023. Posted in Current News

Dr. Pierre Kory and former federal prosecutor George Parry take opposing views

As a true crime author, I am often contacted by people who present me with cases of unnatural death in which it appears that the official investigation overlooked or improperly evaluated evidence, which resulted in erroneous interpretations and conclusions.

About a decade ago I examined a series of unnatural deaths in Austria that were ruled suicides by the Innsbruck Institute of Forensic Medicine in spite of extremely suspicious circumstances.

Here in my native Dallas, I just finished a book that relates the story of two gunshot deaths (in 1975 and 1982) that were ruled suicides by the Dallas County Medical Examiner in spite of extremely suspicious circumstances.

A key part of my investigation was obtaining copies of the death scene photographs and having them evaluated by forensic experts. These experts concluded that the images display features that are NOT consistent with suicide.

One of the most frustrating aspects of true crime investigations is recognizing that it is not always possible to establish with certainty the precise cause and manner of death. Sometimes we are presented with cases that are complex, multifactorial, and ambiguous.

Over the years I have often consulted with Dr. Lynne Herold, who worked as a senior criminalist at the Los Angeles County Scientific Services Bureau.

Among many high profile cases, she was an expert witness in the Phil Spector murder trial, for which she performed a bloodstain pattern analysis and provided expert testimony that challenged Mr. Spector’s assertion that the victim, Lana Clarkson, had committed suicide in his home.

To argue his claim, Spector hired forensic experts Vincent Dimaio, Werner Spitz, and Michael Baden. According to Dr. Herold and other witnesses, these experts made assertions without sufficient scientific basis.

One forensic science blogger described their work on the case as the “Trifecta of Piffle.” Not only did they fail to persuade the jury; they also raised questions about their own integrity, as well as concern that a wealthy defendant could corrupt a murder trial with hired gun scientists.

Though the Appeal to Authority has long been recognized as a fallacy, it happens frequently in jury trials when eminent scientists testify about complex phenomena.

Dr. Herold often hammered into my head the imperative to stay focused on the physical evidence and to resist the temptation of to allow sociological, psychological, or political factors to influence my interpretation.

She also frequently emphasized that in order to conclude that someone is guilty of a crime, one must be able to rule out all alternative, exculpating interpretations of the evidence.

A couple of days ago I wrote on this Substack about Tucker Carlson’s recent review of the George Floyd case. As Carlson pointed out, a recent lawsuit, incidental to Floyd and Chauvin, unveiled sworn deposition excerpts from a conversation with County Medical Examiner Andrew Baker, indicating that Floyd’s passing was not due to asphyxiation or strangulation.

Instead, factors including drug use and a fatal concentration of fentanyl were significant contributors.

In response to Carlson’s reporting, Dr. Pierre Kory (who served as an expert witness for the prosecution) posted an essay on his Substack in which he presented his grounds for concluding that Officer Derek Chauvin was culpable for the death of George Floyd.

I read Dr. Kory’s post (George Floyd Did Not Die Of a Fentanyl Overdose) with great interest—not only because I am intrigued by this true story, but also because I greatly admire Dr. Kory and consider him a good friend.

At the time I wrote about Tucker Carlson’s report, I was unaware that Dr. Kory had served as an expert witness in this case. A mutual friend informed me of this after I posted my essay. I highly recommend reading Dr. Kory’s meticulous account of his investigation, from which he concluded:

Further, it is my opinion that Mr. Floyd did not die of asphyxiation solely due to the pressure on Mr. Floyd’s neck from Officer Chauvin’s knee. Had this been the sole cause, total occlusion of the trachea via external forces would have rendered communication impossible.

When Chauvin’s knee was initially placed on Mr. Floyd’s neck, he could phonate (i,.e. make sounds) given that he was recorded pleading with the officers to “get off” of him and then later, just before he became unconscious, he began calling out for his mother.

This is impossible with an occluded trachea. It is also impossible in severe opiate intoxication.

Instead, my conclusion was that Mr. Floyd died by the combined forces of three officers bearing weight on his thoracic cage (upper back, lower back, and neck/throat) against a concrete surface, rendering him unable to take in sufficient oxygen or expel sufficient carbon dioxide with each breath.

An opposing interpretation of the George Floyd’s death was written by George Parry (“Who Killed George Floyd?”). Parry is a former federal and state prosecutor, and former Chief of the Police Brutality/Misconduct Unit of the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, which investigated and prosecuted use of deadly force by police.

At the heart of these differing interpretations of Floyd’s death is Dr. Kory’s observation that Floyd’s agitated and physically active behavior was not consistent with someone experiencing opiate overdose.

As he put it:

The physical and cognitive abilities exhibited by Mr. Floyd are completely inconsistent with someone severely intoxicated with an opiate.

In opiate intoxication, patients are lethargic, minimally arousable, and/or exhibit slowed breathing.

Dr. Kory also points out the obvious fact that George Floyd stopped moving and talking while Officer Chauvin was pinning him for a prolonged period in the prone restraint position.

While Dr. Kory’s basic analysis strikes me as persuasive, it does not mention the complicating factors of methamphetamine and amphetamine that were also found in Floyd’s blood. According to a recent NPR report (Fentanyl mixed with cocaine or meth is driving the ‘4th wave’ of the overdose crisis).

The tactic is called speedballing, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and can cause an intense high, which can also be very dangerous.

“Stimulants cause vasoconstriction of your vessels and increase your need for oxygen,” said Eric Weintraub, the director of addiction research and treatment at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. “Opioids do the opposite, they actually decrease your respiration so less oxygen is delivered to the body.”

Another complicating factor in George Floyd’s case was that he was suffering from severe atherosclerosis and hypertensive heart disease.

According to his autopsy report:

Cross sections of the vessels show multifocal atherosclerosis, with 75 percent proximal and 75 percent mid narrowing of the left anterior descending coronary artery; 75 percent proximal narrowing of the 1st diagonal branch of the left anterior descending coronary artery; 25 percent proximal narrowing of the circumflex coronary artery; and 90 percent proximal narrowing of the right coronary artery.

This elevated Floyd’s risk of suffering cardiac arrest, especially in a high stress situation. It strikes me as notable that a bystander in the video who seems to know Floyd repeatedly states, “You’re going to have a heart attack” as he watches Floyd vigorously resisting the officers’ attempt to put him into the back seat of the police car.

I wonder if Floyd had complained to this man of having heart trouble in the past.

Given all of the above factors, it strikes me as impossible to rule out that the combination of fentanyl, methamphetamine, and severe heart disease were significant contributing factors to George Floyd’s death.

According to the Medical Examiner, Floyd died of CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST.

Assessing Chauvin’s culpability hinges on the question: should he have recognized that Floyd was dying in the prone restraint position and therefore immediately released him from this position?

This question strikes me as difficult to answer. Though it’s true that Floyd repeatedly stated—minutes before he was placed in the prone position—”I can’t breathe,” he made this declaration while vigorously exerting himself and yelling.

Anyone who watches the arrest video will likely agree that Floyd’s behavior was confusing, for it is a commonplace experience that people who have the sensation of being unable to breathe don’t continue exerting themselves and yelling.

How should the police officers have responded to a large, powerfully built man who vigorously resisted arrest while at the same time declaring, “I can’t breathe”? In the case of George Floyd, the officers called an EMT ambulance and applied maximal restraint on Floyd while they waited for it to arrive.

Should the officers have recognized that holding George Floyd in the maximum restraint position presented a clear and present danger to his life? According to a 2018 study by Kroll, Brave et al. at the University of Minnesota and published in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology:

North American law enforcement officers (LEOs) control and restrain agitated and resistant subjects in the prone position more than 500,000 times each year without a death or serious injury.

As George Parry pointed out in his essay on Floyd’s death, the Maximal Restraint Technique the officers used on George Floyd was authorized and presented in the Minneapolis Police Training Manual that was exhibited in Officer Chauvin’s trial (scroll down to page 6).

Taking all of the above facts into consideration, it seems to me there is not sufficient evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Derek Chauvin is guilty of murdering George Floyd.

The contention that Chauvin understood that he was killing Floyd is further called into doubt by the fact that he committed these actions in front of multiple witnesses, including law officers recording the incident with a video camera.

See more here substack.com

Header image: Sky News

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.