What Derek Chauvin's Trial Didn't Show Us

with John McWhorter, Liz Collin, and JC Chaix

The narrative about Derek Chauvin’s culpability for the death of George Floyd has taken hold in the minds of much of the country. Chauvin choked Floyd to death on the streets of Minneapolis during what should have been a routine arrest. When Chauvin was rightfully convicted of murder and Floyd’s family received a massive settlement in a wrongful death suit from the city of Minneapolis, justice was served. Case closed. For many, that is a fact. You’d have as much luck changing their minds about it as you would convincing them the sky is green.

But there is more to the incident than was included in the official narrative derived from the trial. According to Liz Collin and JC Chaix’s new documentary, The Fall of Minneapolis, potentially exculpatory evidence was excluded, lies were told told under oath, facts were misrepresented, and the jury was mishandled. Liz and JC bring to light serious objections about the official narrative regarding George Floyd, and, as I made clear in my recent conversation with John McWhorter, I find many of those objections convincing.

Still, changing the narrative is a tricky thing. If you’re going to bring new or underrepresented elements of the incident to light, you better make damn sure you have your story straight and your facts checked, or you’ll be written off as an ideologue or a kook. I don’t believe Liz and JC are either of those things. But after viewing the documentary, John and I still felt that we had some questions, and we wanted a little more clarity. To that end, we invited the filmmakers onto the show to ask some follow-ups of our own and from commenters. As you’ll see in this clip, John and I aren’t throwing them softballs, and in my opinion, their story holds up.

---

This is a clip from the episode that went out to paying subscribers on Monday. To get access to the full episode, as well as an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.

---

GLENN LOURY: The police commander on the stand literally lied about the existence of the MRT and committed perjury. I mean, he would have committed perjury if he had said a false statement under oath. That's mind boggling. That's what you guys are alleging, no?

JC CHAIX: Yes. To be clear and not mince any words, we have that same person, the chief of police, Chief Medaria Arradondo, in an interview with an FBI special agent and a Minnesota BCA special agent, refer to the word “hobble.” They didn't introduce that into the conversation. It's a very peculiar word, unless you're talking about how people walk. It's a pretty strange verb. And in this case, it's a noun. It's not in everyday conversation. It is written in this particular policy, Policy 5-316 of the “Use of Force” section of the Minnesota Police Department Policy and Procedure Manual, and it talks about the hobble. So clearly he was aware of this.

Now back to a little bit about the lies of omission for a second to understand why I'm saying this constitutes perjury by lie of omission. You have to understand that there's a problem with that policy. It says, if you use a hobble, you must put the person who is being restrained into what's called the “side recovery position.” An absolute utter failure of this policy is there is no part B that says what to do if you do not use a hobble but still administer the maximum restraint technique, MRT.

I think very early on, someone realized we have a problem here. Clearly from the video, the officers are following that. It should seem very suspicious that the prosecution only uses one photo, Exhibit 17, a still frame photo, instead of the body cam video to imprint—like making propaganda—imprint and isolate Derek Chauvin, as if he is the lone officer with his knee on the neck of a person on the ground. When in fact, there are three officers, and arguably four, since Officer Thao is trying to help find a hobble in the back of the car, that are working together in concert exactly as written in policy, performing a maneuver together that one officer alone cannot perform. It is a one-plus or two or more officer maneuver.

So when on the stand, he's presented with this still image from Exhibit 17 and not the entire body cam video. We definitely have a lie or a construction or a manipulation happening that allows Chief Arradondo to say, “Well, prosecutors, if you're only asking me about this one moment, this one instance in this photo in Exhibit 17, I don't know what that is.” And that's where we have this lie of omission occurring.

LIZ COLLIN: You also have Inspector Katie Blackwell, who echoes that very thing on the stand as well, under oath.

KATIE BAKEWELL: What we train is using one arm or two arm to do a neck restraint.

PROSECUTOR: And how does this differ?

KATIE BAKEWELL: I don't know what kind of improvised position that is.

She has since been promoted to the assistant police chief position in Minneapolis. But [she] also testifies that that's not a part of police training. You can clearly hear in the film these officers talk about how they've been trained in MRT. And this is several decades old at this point, in their training manuals. In fact, I think we found MRT discussed as far back as 1993.

Okay, let's talk about Keith Ellison. Keith Ellison is the attorney general of the state of Minnesota and was so at the time of Derek Chauvin's trial. And I recently heard from him after John and I's original discussion of your film was made public. I want to share with you what he wrote, with his permission, and get your response to that. This is Attorney General Keith Ellison.

Dr. Loury,

I respect your political positions, though I do not share the ones I am aware of. However, your recent posting with Mr. McWhorter regarding the murder of George Floyd contained a factual assertion that Derek Chauvin, together with Alexander King and Thomas Lane, did not cause the death of George Floyd. This is false. While I don't have time to recount all the reasons why your assertion is wrong, I urge you to listen to the testimony of Dr. Tobin to see exactly why and how Chauvin, King, and Lane killed Floyd. I pray you take the time to learn exactly how George Floyd died. He was the victim of a homicide, which means death by another, according to all medical examiners who examined him. I make no other critiques of your political points, not that I agree, but I respect your right to your views. I'm writing you today to try to focus your attention on the factual question of who and what killed Floyd. The officers killed him as a matter of medical fact.

Keith Ellison.

And let me just mention that Dr. Martin Tobin is a medical expert on respiratory mechanics who testified—I did listen to his testimony—that Floyd died from a restriction of his access to air because of the positioning that he was being held in with the handcuffs against the ground and with the MRT.

MARTIN TOBIN: There was virtually very little opportunity for him to be able to get any air to move into the left side of his chest. So he was going to be totally dependent on what he'd be able to do with the right side.

JOHN MCWHORTER: It's an hour and a half of testimony. It's from this man who is clearly an expert. I doubt there's much bias. And if you're going to talk about the cinematic version of it, he's Irish. He didn't grow up with a dog in this fight. He's just basically doing his job. And from what he says, it was that Floyd was pushed against the ground and therefore had no ability to use his left lung. It was as if the left lung had been taken out and he's trying to use his right lung, but he can't because King is pushing him down on his back. And also, Floyd is moving his shoulder in a way that apparently suggests that someone is trying to open up their chest cavity to get more air. And then after a while, he stops moving his shoulder.

Now, no sign of asphyxiation. I said, in our last conversation, to Glenn that, well, why is there no sign of asphyxiation? Ellison and I had a little exchange yesterday, and I said, well, why is there no sign of asphyxiation? And he said, there doesn't have to be. That's not always the way it works. A person can just not have been able to get enough air, and they die anyway.

---

---

Now, I genuinely want to know, given that Ellison is as sure of his facts as you two are of yours, what is the response? So, for example, let's say that you guys show that report where it says there are no signs of asphyxiation. I found that very compelling. Can we really say? I'm asking this just because I want the truth in this.

And audience, folks, if I turn out to be wrong about what I said last week, well, I'm not going to like it, but I'm going to face up to it, because I'm looking for the truth. But I am going to resist a little, because a lot of this still doesn't make any sense. Can you really say that shortness of breath didn't kill that man? Especially because, given all the stuff that was in him and how upset he was, that probably put him to the halfway point anyway. Can we really say that those officers did not cause him to go from sick and out-of-breath to dead? This is a genuine question.

JC CHAIX: Sure. If I may, let's get back to empirical evidence. First of all, and with respect to all the witness testimony, let's just grant them everything they said is actually factually accurate 100%. We still have a contention nonetheless. We have Dr. Andrew M. Baker, who is the pathologist, the only pathologist to actually examine George Floyd. So I would submit everything else thereafter is exactly that, conjecture, unless you were actually materially involved in that autopsy. You're entitled to any opinion you'd like, however expert or however amateur it may be.

Back to the autopsy report. It does not say the word “homicide” at all. And then we have a very, very peculiar situation with this report. And the case title reads something like cardiopulmonary arrest, complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression. It does not say asphyxiation. Now, I know Ellison would like to say, well it doesn't have to. Because his attorneys actually argue this is just a style issue. The fact that Baker doesn't mention this is just a matter of style. That's a very interesting way of handling exculpatory evidence.

But let's back up for a second. The first words in this report under the case title from the only pathologist who examined George Floyd says “cardiopulmonary arrest.” And interestingly, the first instance of Mr. Floyd complaining about shortness of breath is even before he was taken out of the police car. Even before Derek Chauvin had touched him at all, we have George Floyd saying, “I can't choke, I can't breathe,” long before any officer is touching him, putting him on the ground, or kneeling on his neck, as we're led to believe here.

And then, interestingly, we learn that Dr. Baker was extremely concerned about the actual facts in his autopsy report not aligning with the popular narrative. And he expresses that to Prosecutor Amy Sweasy the day of his conducting of this autopsy. That should be very, very telling.

I just want to be clear on what the rebuttal is of Dr. Martin Tobin's testimony here. What are you saying was wrong about what he said? Because as I listened to him, he had an account. No, he didn't do an autopsy, but it was about the mechanics. It was about the consequence of the body position and, as John described, the breathing and so on.

And he says lack of access to oxygen. You're saying that's theoretical? That that didn't actually kill him? It could have perhaps theoretically have done so, but in the case at hand, it did not do so? Is that the claim? I just want to be clear.

JC CHAIX: I would say this. It's interesting. Might be relevant. But again, it doesn't account for everything that happened. How would he explain George Floyd saying, “I can't choke, I can't breathe.” Nobody's on top of him. Nobody's on his neck. In fact, for a few seconds, nobody's even touching him. No police officer is touching him.

That testimony fails to account for that. Anything that's going to be expert, in my opinion, would need to do a much more vigorous, comprehensive job of starting at the initial part of the encounter and following it all the way through to the end to make anything that even reflects a comprehensive testimony and then also one that precludes and excludes the idea of anything that looks like a lie of omission. When you don't talk about those facts in your testimony, I'm having difficulty understanding how you're not looking at the entirety of this encounter.

JOHN MCWHORTER: Oh Lord. All right. One thing that I get from both the documentary and Tobin is that Chauvin and King didn't know they were killing him, if they were. They weren't trying to cut off his oxygen. They may have, but they had no idea that's what was going on.

But I have something else. And this is a little “linguist.” I think a lot of people have been thinking it, and you guys have actually given me some clarity. What was that expression about what criminals do? “Running game,” is it called?

JC CHAIX: It's one of the street references. Yes, John.

JOHN MCWHORTER: This is something we have to remember. Tragically, ever since Eric Garner saying “I can't breathe,” I suspect that saying “I can't breathe” could be used as a kind of running game. And so Floyd is sitting there. He knows he's being filmed. Maybe when he said, “I can't breathe,” it wasn't that the fentanyl was setting in but he was using a line that he thought might scare the cops off a bit. Doesn't that sound really plausible, unfortunately? And we can't ever know. Glenn, what do you think?

Well, I think “hands up, don't shoot,” I think a hoodie with the Skittles and the iced tea, and I think “I can't breathe” became tropes. They became verbal tics that people repair to in order to express something. And of course, it's plausible that that could have influenced what George Floyd said on that occasion. That's speculation on your part. But it's plausible speculation.

JC CHAIX: When you put bracelets on people and they know they're going to jail, you will hear all sorts of things. There are, in fact, many tropes that you will hear. In fact, there were tons of videos after this where you have victims saying, “They're trying to George Floyd me! They're trying to George Floyd me!” This just goes on. It belongs to the sort of milieu, if you will, of repeat criminal offenders. They do have their own vocabulary. They do have their own mannerisms and behaviorisms.

There's a reason why the MRT, as a technique used by law enforcement agencies all over the United States since decades ago, if there was a fundamental problem, if people were dying as a result of this over and over and over again, it would not be in the policy of so many police departments for so long.

---