Every reputable and credible forensic pathologist and toxicologist has issues with this "reporting."
A thread, as the kids say.
Was it fatal? LOL, no. He was walking and talking not dead on a couch.
The number of deaths compared to total doses on the street is minuscule.
other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death."
Key words here: "normal circumstances" and "no other contributing factors."
Could it have been fatal? Sure, if the investigation and autopsy support it - remember the triangle?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
/🧵