Connect with us

News

George Floyd died from lack of oxygen, not fentanyl, says expert

Published

on

George Floyd died from a lack of oxygen during his arrest, a doctor at the trial of ex-police officer Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis has said.

Contradicting the defence, Dr Martin Tobin said fentanyl did not cause Mr Floyd’s death. He said even a “healthy person…would have died”.

Mr Chauvin, 45, was filmed kneeling on Mr Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes during his arrest last May.

The ex-officer is on trial for murder and has denied the charges against him.

The footage of Mr Chauvin, who is white, with his knee on African-American Mr Floyd’s neck sparked global protests against racism.

Prosecutors are trying to prove Mr Chauvin’s use of force resulted in Mr Floyd’s death, while Mr Chauvin’s defence are seeking to show he was following his training and that drugs may have caused Mr Floyd’s death.

The trial is in its second week and is expected to last for at least one month. The defence is due to begin arguing its case in court next week.

What did the experts say about fentanyl?

A toxicology report released last June said that Mr Floyd had the painkiller fentanyl and the drug methamphetamine in his system.

Since then, the defence has argued that the fentanyl caused Mr Floyd’s loss of oxygen.

However Dr Tobin, an intensive care doctor, said that Mr Floyd’s breathing did not slow down enough for the painkiller to have been a factor in his total loss of oxygen.

Forensic toxicologist Daniel Isenschmid, whose laboratory tested Mr Floyd’s blood and urine samples following his death, said there was evidence that some of the fentanyl had metabolised, meaning that an overdose was less likely.

The defence also questioned Kentucky police surgeon Dr Bill Smock, an expert in forensic emergency medicine.

Dr Smock said Mr Floyd displayed “air hunger”, a term for when the body becomes desperate for oxygen. While a fentanyl overdose can slow down breathing, he said people who are overdosing are not aware that they are lacking oxygen and often appear sleepy. In contrast, he said Mr Floyd appeared to be alert.

On cross-examination, he agreed with the defence that there was “no safe” amount of methamphetamine to be in someone’s system, and that an overdose of methamphetamine and fentanyl combined may look different from fentanyl alone.

Dr Smock also told the court that while viewing the footage, he heard Mr Floyd complain about being unable to breathe before he was restrained on the ground.

What else was the court told?

Asked about the positioning of the handcuffs behind Mr Floyd’s back, coupled with the downward pressure of Mr Chauvin’s weight against him, Dr Tobin – an expert in pulmonary medicine – said that Mr Floyd’s ability to expand his chest to breathe was severely impaired.

It was, Dr Tobin said, like the left side of his chest was “in a vice”.

Dr Tobin said the positioning of the handcuffs was also significant.

“It’s how they’re being pushed, where they are being pushed, that totally interfere with central features of how we breathe.”

“[Mr Floyd] has used up his resources and is literally trying to breathe with his fingers and knuckles against the street to try to crank up his chest, to try to get air into his right lung,” he added.

“You can see he’s conscious, you can see slight flickering and then it disappears. One second he’s alive, one second he’s no longer.”

‘Healthy person would have died too’

Dr Tobin said that Mr Floyd had already shown signs of brain injury about four minutes before Mr Chauvin took his knee off his neck, and that a healthy person who was put through this “would have died” too.

About three minutes before Mr Chauvin removed his knee, Dr Tobin said, there was “not an ounce of oxygen left in his body”.

“The knee remains on the neck for another three minutes and 27 seconds after he takes his last breath,” Dr Tobin said. “After the officers have found themselves that there’s no pulse, the knee remains on the neck for another two minutes and 44 seconds.”

Dr Tobin used footage captured during Mr Floyd’s arrest to provide his medical opinion on the ninth day of Mr Chauvin’s trial.

During his cross-examination, defence attorney Eric Nelson suggested that Dr Tobin’s assessment was “conditioned upon [Mr Floyd] being a healthy individual”.

“We understand that Mr Floyd had some heart disease,” Mr Nelson said. “That’s going to affect blood flow in a person?”

Dr Tobin said that if Mr Floyd had been suffering from a coronary condition at the time he would have been “complaining of chest pain and demonstrating a very rapid respiratory rate,” adding: “We don’t see either.”

What has happened in the trial so far?

The court has heard from witnesses, medical experts and police officers. The moments leading to Mr Floyd’s encounter with police, as well as the footage that sparked nationwide protests, have been closely scrutinised.

The early stages of the trial saw often tearful testimony from onlookers. The teenager whose video of the arrest went viral said “it’s been nights I stay up apologising and apologising to George Floyd for not doing more”.

This week the Minneapolis police chief Medaria Arradondo said Mr Chauvin had violated the agency’s policy on using force. An expert witness also said that the use of force was “excessive”.

The defence has sought to show Mr Chauvin acted lawfully in a volatile situation. His lawyer said the evidence “is clearly more than about nine minutes and 29 seconds,” referring to the videos of Mr Floyd’s death.

The jury’s verdict must be unanimous and US police officers are rarely convicted or charged at all for deaths that occur in custody. (BBC)



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Indo-Lanka MoUs unlikely to be tabled in Parliament any time soon

Published

on

Ali Sabry

…of seven SOCs only one constituted so far

Sri Lanka’s controversial MoU on Defence Cooperation with India was unlikely to be taken up any time soon in Parliament in spite of the House Sectoral Oversight Committee (SOC) on Governance, Justice and Civil Protection that has been assigned defence, authoritative sources told The Island.

Of the seven SOCs only one was activated with the recent election of Dr. Najith Indika, MP, as the Chairman of the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Governance, Justice, and Civil Protection of the Tenth Parliament.

The inaugural meeting of the current parliament was held on 21 Nov., 2024.

Sources said that the parliament had met for the last time yesterday (10) before the Sinhala and Tamil New Year holiday. It is scheduled to meet again on May 8.

The UNDP that has financially backed the establishment of the SOC system to help strengthen the role of the parliament recently reached a consensus with the government to reduce the number of SCOCs from 17 to seven. The Island, in writing, asked for the UNDP’s reaction to the operation of SOCs but had not received a response at the time this edition went to press.

The SOCs have the power to examine any Bill, except the Bills defined in Article 152 of the Constitution, Treaty, Reports including the Annual and Performance Reports relating to the institutions coming under its purview or any other matter referred to the Committee by Parliament or any Committee or a Minister relating to the subjects and functions within their jurisdiction.

Sources said that out of the seven SOCs only one had been activated during the past five months though the government and the Opposition agreed to share the leadership of them.

Accordingly, it was agreed that the government would appoint chairpersons to four SOCs –– Economic Development and International Relations, Health, Media and Women’s Empowerment, Science, Technology and Digital Transformation and Governance, Justice and Civil Protection .

It was also agreed that the Opposition would appoint chairpersons to the SOCs on Infrastructure and Strategic Development, Education, Manpower and Human Capital, and Environment, Agriculture and Resource Sustainability to the Opposition.

India and Sri Lanka on April 5 signed six MoUs on HVDC interconnection for import/export of power, cooperation in the field of sharing successful digital solutions implemented at population scale for digital transformation, defence cooperation, multi sectoral grant assistance for Eastern province, health and medicine and pharmacopoeia cooperation. In addition to them, India, Sri Lanka and UAE signed a tripartite MoU cooperation in development of Trincomalee as an energy hub.

The Island  asked Ali Sabry, PC, who served as foreign minister during Ranil Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the President (July 2022 to Sept 2024) whether the seven MoUs had been discussed during that period. We also asked him whether those MoUs should have been discussed at SOCs before finalisation.

Sabry said: “Most of the MOU to my knowledge were discussed except the one on Defence Cooperation, which I am unaware of. General procedure is the relevant line ministry prepares the initial draft and gets the input from the Foreign Ministry and goes for stakeholder consultation of all ministries and agencies involved. Then the President’s Office grants its sanction and with the approval of the AG, it goes before the cabinet of ministers. With Cabinet approval, the government could sign the MOU.”

Sabry said that he was of the opinion that once the government signed a particular MoU, it should be placed before the parliament. “MOU’s are generally not legally binding and only signify the desire to work together. If the signed MoUs were to be implemented, then they have to be followed by agreements or laws.”

He emphasised the pivotal importance of transparency in the whole process. The ex-minister said: “I think transparency is crucial in these matters. Concealment leads to speculation and assumption of the worst. The MOUs should be tabled in Parliament for public information. Discussion at the relevant SOCs would have been helpful. There are growing fears fueled by lack of information in the public domain. This is a private comment, not to be attributed to me.

Asked whether MoUs, particularly the ones on defence and energy had to be approved by the Attorney General, the former minister said that the AG has to advise the MoUs compatibility with the Constitution. “But Article 157 of the Constitution does not apply; the 2/3 majority stipulated there envisages only investment treaties.” Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath assured Parliament on April 8 that the AG had cleared all seven MoUs and none of them were inimical to the country.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Continue Reading

News

LG polls: Appeal Court orders EC to accept 35 additional nomination papers

Published

on

The Court of Appeal yesterday ordered the Election Commission (EC) to accept 35 additional nomination papers for the 2025 local government elections, which had been previously rejected by election officials.

The ruling was issued yesterday by a bench comprising Acting President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Mohamed Lafar Tahir, and Justice Priyantha Fernando. The court ordered the relevant Returning Officers to accept the nominations following hearings on several petitions filed by political parties and independent groups challenging the rejections.

Last week, the Court of Appeal ordered the EC to accept 37 previously rejected nomination papers.

by A.J.A. Abeynayake

Continue Reading

News

Defence MoU with Quad member will drag Sri Lanka further into new cold war: CP

Published

on

Dr. G. Weerasinghe

The Communist Party (CP) of Sri Lanka yesterday (10) expressed grave concern over the NPP government’s unilateral decision to enter into a defence MOU with Quad-member India.

The CPSL urged All democratic and progressive forces to pressure the government to reveal the contents of the defence agreement with India. It also asked the NPP government to revive the Indian Ocean Peace Zone proposal at the UN and mobilise global opposition to militarisation in the region. All democratic and progressive forces had to build a United Front against a New Cold War, the CP has said.

General Secretary of CP Dr. G. Weerasinghe has issued the following statement: “This decision has been taken without consultation or debate in Parliament and in the context of a New Cold War and heightened militarisation of the Indian Ocean.

During Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Sri Lanka from 4-6 April, a defence MOU was exchanged between Secretary of the Ministry of Defence of Sri Lanka retired Air Vice Marshal H.S. Sampath Thuyacontha and Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri.

Indian media has framed this MOU as being part of Indian strategy to counter China’s presence in the region.

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake assured Modi that Sri Lanka, “will not permit its territory to be used in any manner inimical to the security of India as well as towards regional stability”. While the CPSL has no fundamental objection to this, questions remain over India’s own commitment to regional stability.

The fact is that India is a member of the Quad and has partaken in US efforts to contain China in a New Cold War. In 2024, current US Secretary of State Marco Rubio tabled a bill in congress to grant India a status on par with NATO members. During a meeting between Modi and US President Donald Trump in February, India and the US entered into a 10-year defence partnership framework to transfer technology, expand co-production of arms, and strengthen military interoperability.

By entering into defence agreements with India, there is a very real danger of Sri Lanka being dragged into the Quad through the back door as a subordinate of India. Sri Lanka could become a de facto part of the Indo-Pacific Strategy and compromise its non-aligned status. This would be antithetical to Sri Lanka’s interests as China is a major investor and trade partner for the country and has supported our sovereignty in international fora.

Sri Lanka is currently not directly embroiled in any conflict with an external actor and therefore has no need to enter into defence agreements. The last defence agreement that Sri Lanka entered into was with the UK-Ceylon Defence Pact (1947-1957), which was a neocolonial arrangement detrimental to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and international relations.

The defence MOU with India could also be interpreted as a step towards further militarisation of the Indian Ocean, which is a violation of the UN Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace which both countries supported.”

Continue Reading

Trending