The facts were known shortly after when the full autopsy was leaked. Did you read that?

The full original video also is not as damning as you think and is exculpatory.

The problem is the source or original information isn't always easy to find. I doubt you've seen the original video where one of the crowd racially abuses Chauvin attacking him verbally for being white. 99.9% of the footage out their is second hand, edited, cut and not the master copy.

You have the prosecution telling you about the autopsy. You have the defence telling you about the autopsy. You have journalists and commentators telling you about the autopsy.

Did you ever go and read the original? Always go to the source. That's basic. The mistake you're making is you don't realise how many facts were known prior to the court case.

You think all of it is new. It's not. Most of it has been out there is has simply been smothered. You obviously missed when shortly after this happened we were all on here going through the evidence and ignoring the middlemen.

We've had all the body cam transcripts, then later the body cam, all the relevant footage, the full autopsy, all the relevant data from related fields including medical and professional, etc. That's without a prosecution getting in the way to be able to filter their experts and create a false context.

Has the trial introduced a few new things? Sure. More lies from the prosecution that really are no different from the media and that are lies we've already heard like the family's fake independent autopsy (which by definition isn't because it's paid for by the plaintiff as part of their suit).

Everything new only adds more reasonable doubt where there was already enough evidence for reasonable doubt. Whatever Chauvin did or didn't do you can establish a justified reason for it. You can also establish a justifiable reason for in the case of any mistake having justified grounds to believe otherwise.

New Evidence:

• He fell asleep prior and it was hard to wake him.
• Video of him clearly intoxicated in the shop.
• Drugs in car.
• Confirmation by ambulance driver of having to drive away from crowd.
• Prior history of recent overdose.
• Maybe the blood saturation levels.
• Scuffle over the money.

All of this is superfluous on top of the evidence already available. We already knew about most of this from the crime reports, transcripts, etc.

This case shouldn't have even gone to trial. When there's already enough evidence to rule out guilt and yet they are having to produce more and more evidence to prove innocence that tells you there's something wrong.

The facts were known shortly after when the full autopsy was leaked. Did you read that?

The full original video also is not as damning as you think and is exculpatory.

The problem is the source or original information isn't always easy to find. I doubt you've seen the original video where one of the crowd racially abuses Chauvin attacking him verbally for being white. 99.9% of the footage out their is second hand, edited, cut and not the master copy.

You have the prosecution telling you about the autopsy. You have the defence telling you about the autopsy. You have journalists and commentators telling you about the autopsy.

Did you ever go and read the original? Always go to the source. That's basic. The mistake you're making is you don't realise how many facts were known prior to the court case.

You think all of it is new. It's not. Most of it has been out there is has simply been smothered. You obviously missed when shortly after this happened we were all on here going through the evidence and ignoring the middlemen.

We've had all the body cam transcripts, then later the body cam, all the relevant footage, the full autopsy, all the relevant data from related fields including medical and professional, etc. That's without a prosecution getting in the way to be able to filter their experts and create a false context.

Has the trial introduced a few new things? Sure. More lies from the prosecution that really are no different from the media and that are lies we've already heard like the family's fake independent autopsy (which by definition isn't because it's paid for by the plaintiff as part of their suit).

Everything new only adds more reasonable doubt where there was already enough evidence for reasonable doubt. Whatever Chauvin did or didn't do you can establish a justified reason for it. You can also establish a justifiable reason for in the case of any mistake having justified grounds to believe otherwise.

New Evidence:

• He fell asleep prior and it was hard to wake him.
• Video of him clearly intoxicated in the shop.
• Drugs in car.
• Confirmation by ambulance driver of having to drive away from crowd.
• Prior history of recent overdose.
• Maybe the blood saturation levels.
• Scuffle over the money.

All of this is superfluous on top of the evidence already available. We already knew about most of this from the crime reports, transcripts, etc.

This case shouldn't have even gone to trial. When there's already enough evidence to rule out guilt and yet they are having to produce more and more evidence to prove innocence that tells you there's something wrong.

The facts were known shortly after when the full autopsy was leaked. Did you read that?

The full original video also is not as damning as you think and is exonorary.

The problem is the source or original information isn't always easy to find. I doubt you've seen the original video where one of the crowd racially abuses Chauvin attacking him verbally for being white. 99.9% of the footage out their is second hand, edited, cut and not the master copy.

You have the prosecution telling you about the autopsy. You have the defence telling you about the autopsy. You have journalists and commentators telling you about the autopsy.

Did you ever go and read the original? Always go to the source. That's basic. The mistake you're making is you don't realise how many facts were known prior to the court case.

You think all of it is new. It's not. Most of it has been out there is has simply been smothered. You obviously missed when shortly after this happened we were all on here going through the evidence and ignoring the middlemen.

We've had all the body cam transcripts, then later the body cam, all the relevant footage, the full autopsy, all the relevant data from related fields including medical and professional, etc. That's without a prosecution getting in the way to be able to filter their experts and create a false context.

Has the trial introduced a few new things? Sure. More lies from the prosecution that really are no different from the media and that are lies we've already heard like the family's fake independent autopsy (which by definition isn't because it's paid for by the plaintiff as part of their suit).

Everything new only adds more reasonable doubt where there was already enough evidence for reasonable doubt. Whatever Chauvin did or didn't do you can establish a justified reason for it. You can also establish a justifiable reason for in the case of any mistake having justified grounds to believe otherwise.

New Evidence:

• He fell asleep prior and it was hard to wake him.
• Video of him clearly intoxicated in the shop.
• Drugs in car.
• Confirmation by ambulance driver of having to drive away from crowd.
• Prior history of recent overdose.
• Maybe the blood saturation levels.
• Scuffle over the money.

All of this is superfluous on top of the evidence already available. We already knew about most of this from the crime reports, transcripts, etc.

This case shouldn't have even gone to trial. When there's already enough evidence to rule out guilt and yet they are having to produce more and more evidence to prove innocence that tells you there's something wrong.

The facts were known shortly after when the full autopsy was leaked. Did you read that?

The full original video also is not as damning as you think and is exonorary.

The problem is the source or original information isn't always easy to find. I doubt you've seen the original video where one of the crowd racially abuses Chauvin attacking him verbally for being white. 99.9% of the footage out their is second hand, edited, cut and not the master copy.

You have the prosecution telling you about the autopsy. You have the defence telling you about the autopsy. You have journalists and commentators telling you about the autopsy.

Did you ever go and read the original? Always go to the source. That's basic. The mistake you're making is you don't realise how many facts were known prior to the court case.

You think all of it is new. It's not. Most of it has been out there is has simply been smothered. You obviously missed when shortly after this happened we were all on here going through the evidence and ignoring the middlemen.

We've had all the body cam transcripts, then later the body cam, all the relevant footage, the full autopsy, all the relevant data from related fields including medical and professional, etc. That's without a prosecution getting in the way to be able to filter their experts and create a false context.

Has the trial introduced a few new things? Sure. More lies from the prosecution that really are no different from the media and that are lies we've already heard like the family's fake independent autopsy (which by definition isn't because it's paid for by the plaintiff as part of their suit).

Everything new only adds more reasonable doubt where there was already enough evidence for reasonable doubt. Whatever Chauvin did or didn't do you can establish a justified reason for it. You can also establish a justifiable reason for in the case of any mistake having justified grounds to believe otherwise.

This case shouldn't have even gone to trial. When there's already enough evidence to rule out guilt and yet they are having to produce more and more evidence to prove innocence that tells you there's something wrong.