nivico says:
June 12, 2015 at 11:37 pm

Here’s the relevant section of the previous Baltimore PD Order K-14 covering the use of seat belts during transport that had been in place since 1997:

“Whenever an arrestee is transported in a police vehicle, ensure: […] The arrestee is secured with seat/restraint belts provided. This procedure should be evaluated on an individual basis so not to place oneself in any danger.”

http://www.aele.org/law/2009all10/balti ... nsport.pdf

So for the better part of the last 20 years, while using a seat belt was advised, it was a discretionary practice that should be decided on a case by case basis.

We’ve been ~told~ that the policy changed just 9 days before the Gray incident, but Order K-14 is a fairly extensive eleven page document and something tells me that the new policy probably isn’t worded very much differently with regard to the discretionary use of seat belts.

Wink wink nudge nudge… if anyone has a copy of the new revised policy, we’d surely love to see it

Mentalist says:
June 16, 2015 at 2:38 pm

Given her relationship Attorney Billy Murphy, who is represents the family of Freddie Gray, I willing to bet that Mosby has probably shared or discussed details of this case with him. Page Croyder (who used to work for the States Attorney’s Office under an equally incompetent woman named Patricia Jessamy, also known as “Plea Bargain Pat”) has discussed a possible quid pro quo where charges against a client of Murphy’s (a police officer involved in a case where a dog’s throat was slit and subsequently died) were dropped as soon as Mosby was sworn into office. I posted a link to that case below:

True Colors says:
June 16, 2015 at 3:28 pm

Nothing in the Mosby probable cause statement identifies how this “fatal injury” could have occurred in the van, let alone DID occur in the van.

That right there is the lynchpin of the entire case.

Is it possible that Freddie Gray injured his before the cops even got their hands on him(e.g., Gray possibly jumped out of a building window during the police chase)? The video of his arrest shows him screaming out in pain, which would favor a claim by the police that he was already badly injured when they first got him.

Or, is it possible that Gray suffered his spinal injury sometime after the police dropped him off at the hospital? Is there any possibility that there was some type of medical mishap?

The accused police officers are not obligated to prove any of this. They can sit back and do nothing.

On the other hand, Mosby DOES have to prove her claims. She MUST provide compelling evidence that Gray was injured inside the van specifically — not before and not after.

Furthermore, Mosby is also obligated to prove that the injury to the spine occurred as a direct result of action by the police(or inaction on their part).

If Gray slammed his body against the police van with such extraordinary force as to break his spine, then there should be blood evidence inside the van, and/or extreme signs of blunt force trauma on his body.

TC

John Galt says:
June 16, 2015 at 3:36 pm

Yes, good points. There is one more. Look at the photo I posted. If Freddie was injured in the van, then Freddie is faking in the photo showing him with the white cops. How do you hold somebody criminally responsible for not knowing whether a proven faker needs urgent medical attention?

VegasGuy says:
June 16, 2015 at 6:23 pm

Manner of death falls into 1 of 5 legal classifications. 1) Homicide, 2) Suicide, 3) Accidental, 4) Natural causes, or 5) Undetermined.

So Mosby has her ME classification of Homicide as the manner of death. The bigger problem is cause of death.

The manner & cause of death must legally have a foundation in forensic science. There has to be a direct cause & effect. Such as something-something happened to the deceased, which in turn caused such & such, & the results of those actions, perpetrated by (defendent X or X’s) caused his death.

Her claim that Gray, riding in the rear of the van, sustained “a fatal” injury, without specifying what the injury was or how & when that injury occured (in the rear of the van at various points during travel), just won’t cut it. Without specific action from any or all of the defendents specified, 4 of the 5 legal classifications of manner of death is presented. The only manner of death that, in her argument, can be eliminated is Natural Causes.

If Mosby is trying to prevent the release of the autopsy, then there is a question with the cause of death. Yeah, she is saying that Gray was “injured” while within the van, & has alluded to some unknown injury that corresponds with a “bolt in the rear of the van”.having come into contact with Gray. All well & good.

The problem, legally, is that the ME will have to establish direct cause & effect of the injuries resulting from direct action on the part(s) of 1 or more defendents. Mosby’s argument, hanging her hat on the “seat belt policy”, is weak at best. Attempting to associate that with negligence on the part of 5 defendents & depraved Murder on 1 additional defendent is a non-winable case IMO.

Without some specific acknowledgement from the ME that a specific action caused Grays’ injury, she is sunk. And the autopsy would contain that specific information, if it exists.

I do not think it does exist. Hence, her efforts not to release it. She wamts to build her case on the “negligence” aspect soley, without allowing the defense to counter, except at trial. She has set the stage with her pretrial, emotional, prejudicial statements to the community.And she does not want that apple cart upended publically.

The van can not be the extended “instrument of malice & harmfulness” for all the defendents. Not without connecting them all to complete control over its’ use. 3 Officers loading Gray into the van have no further control of the use of the van once Gray was loaded.The 2 additional officers “peering” into the van to check the condition of Gray had no further control over the use of the van once the rear doors were closed.

Her argument of negligence might hold up for Goodson as the driver of the van. He did have direct control over its’ use. But she will have to prove that he was the responsible individual required to enforce the seat belt policy. And, even at that, it is still an ambigious proposition to prove.

So her position that they all, by means of extension, equally contributed to Grays’ death due to their individual, yet, as she claims, collective negligence, is going to be an uphill battle. Both in the presentation of that theory as well as having a reasonable jury accept that as conclusive evidence that resulted in Grays; death.

That said, we haven’t even touched on the interactions of the PMs’, the Trauma Center, the surgury, and post op treatment & any potential complications from those actions. Nor have we explored any potential pre-existing conditions.

JMHO….