{"id":10935,"date":"2024-11-06T17:10:15","date_gmt":"2024-11-07T01:10:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=10935"},"modified":"2024-11-06T17:10:41","modified_gmt":"2024-11-07T01:10:41","slug":"a-one-sided-battle-of-the-experts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=10935","title":{"rendered":"A One-Sided Battle of the Experts"},"content":{"rendered":"

Following up on Mike’s post<\/a> earlier today. I obtained the federal district court opinion in Grayson v. Hamm<\/em>, M.D. Ala. No. 2:24-cv-00376-RAH and uploaded it here<\/a>. It makes interesting reading. Here is one passage:<\/p>\n

The evidence here presents the classic battle of the experts, and a battle where one expert (Dr. McAlary) [the inmate’s] has no supporting case studies or other supporting medical testimony while the other (Dr. Antognini) [the state’s] does. And when considering these medical experts and their opinions in the context of the evidence on which they rely, Grayson\u2019s expert finds himself without any real foundational support other than an unsupported opinion \u2013 no supporting articles or case studies, reliance upon highly questionable hearsay witness accounts, no support in Smith\u2019s autopsy report for an upper airway obstruction that led to negative pressure pulmonary edema, untested reliance on proposed alternatives with their own set of risks and complications, unfounded theories of risks of mask leaks or monitoring device failures, and unfounded theories that the execution team cannot adequately monitor pulse oximeter or EKG devices or make the simple interpretations intended from them. As such, the Court finds Dr. Antognini and his opinions on these subjects more credible and persuasive than those of Dr. McAlary.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I find it appalling that so many medical professionals consider it perfectly okay to testify to junk science so long as it supports the preferred narrative.<\/p>\n

If the professional regulatory bodies are so politicized that they apply a different standard depending on which side one is testifying for, then it is time to clean house at those bodies.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Following up on Mike’s post earlier today. I obtained the federal district court opinion in Grayson v. Hamm, M.D. Ala. No. 2:24-cv-00376-RAH and uploaded it here. It makes interesting reading. Here is one passage: The evidence here presents the classic battle of the experts, and a battle where one expert (Dr. McAlary) [the inmate’s] has no supporting case studies or other supporting medical testimony while the other (Dr. Antognini) [the state’s] does. And when considering these medical experts and their opinions in the context of the evidence on which they rely, Grayson\u2019s expert finds himself without any real foundational support other than an unsupported opinion \u2013 no supporting articles or case studies, reliance upon highly questionable hearsay witness accounts, no support in Smith\u2019s autopsy report for an upper airway obstruction that led to negative pressure pulmonary edema, untested reliance on proposed alternatives with their own set of risks and complications, unfounded theories of risks of mask leaks or monitoring device failures, and unfounded theories that the execution team cannot adequately monitor pulse oximeter or EKG devices or make the simple interpretations intended from them. As such, the Court finds Dr. Antognini and his opinions on these subjects more credible and persuasive than those of Dr. McAlary. I find it appalling that so many medical professionals consider it perfectly okay to testify to junk science so long as it supports the preferred narrative.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10935","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-death-penalty","category-evidence"],"yoast_head":"\nA One-Sided Battle of the Experts - Crime & Consequences<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=10935\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A One-Sided Battle of the Experts - Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Following up on Mike’s post earlier today. I obtained the federal district court opinion in Grayson v. Hamm, M.D. Ala. No. 2:24-cv-00376-RAH and uploaded it here. It makes interesting reading. Here is one passage: The evidence here presents the classic battle of the experts, and a battle where one expert (Dr. McAlary) [the inmate’s] has no supporting case studies or other supporting medical testimony while the other (Dr. Antognini) [the state’s] does. And when considering these medical experts and their opinions in the context of the evidence on which they rely, Grayson\u2019s expert finds himself without any real foundational support other than an unsupported opinion \u2013 no supporting articles or case studies, reliance upon highly questionable hearsay witness accounts, no support in Smith\u2019s autopsy report for an upper airway obstruction that led to negative pressure pulmonary edema, untested reliance on proposed alternatives with their own set of risks and complications, unfounded theories of risks of mask leaks or monitoring device failures, and unfounded theories that the execution team cannot adequately monitor pulse oximeter or EKG devices or make the simple interpretations intended from them. As such, the Court finds Dr. Antognini and his opinions on these subjects more credible and persuasive than those of Dr. McAlary. I find it appalling that so many medical professionals consider it perfectly okay to testify to junk science so long as it supports the preferred narrative.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=10935\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-11-07T01:10:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-11-07T01:10:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=10935\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=10935\",\"name\":\"A One-Sided Battle of the Experts - Crime & Consequences\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2024-11-07T01:10:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-11-07T01:10:41+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=10935#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=10935\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=10935#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A One-Sided Battle of the Experts\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\",\"name\":\"Crime & Consequences\",\"description\":\"Crime and criminal law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\",\"name\":\"Kent Scheidegger\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.cjlf.org\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A One-Sided Battle of the Experts - Crime & Consequences","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=10935","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A One-Sided Battle of the Experts - Crime & Consequences","og_description":"Following up on Mike’s post earlier today. I obtained the federal district court opinion in Grayson v. Hamm, M.D. Ala. No. 2:24-cv-00376-RAH and uploaded it here. It makes interesting reading. Here is one passage: The evidence here presents the classic battle of the experts, and a battle where one expert (Dr. McAlary) [the inmate’s] has no supporting case studies or other supporting medical testimony while the other (Dr. Antognini) [the state’s] does. And when considering these medical experts and their opinions in the context of the evidence on which they rely, Grayson\u2019s expert finds himself without any real foundational support other than an unsupported opinion \u2013 no supporting articles or case studies, reliance upon highly questionable hearsay witness accounts, no support in Smith\u2019s autopsy report for an upper airway obstruction that led to negative pressure pulmonary edema, untested reliance on proposed alternatives with their own set of risks and complications, unfounded theories of risks of mask leaks or monitoring device failures, and unfounded theories that the execution team cannot adequately monitor pulse oximeter or EKG devices or make the simple interpretations intended from them. As such, the Court finds Dr. Antognini and his opinions on these subjects more credible and persuasive than those of Dr. McAlary. I find it appalling that so many medical professionals consider it perfectly okay to testify to junk science so long as it supports the preferred narrative.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=10935","og_site_name":"Crime & Consequences","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/","article_published_time":"2024-11-07T01:10:15+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-11-07T01:10:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Kent Scheidegger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kent Scheidegger","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=10935","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=10935","name":"A One-Sided Battle of the Experts - Crime & Consequences","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2024-11-07T01:10:15+00:00","dateModified":"2024-11-07T01:10:41+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=10935#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=10935"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=10935#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A One-Sided Battle of the Experts"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/","name":"Crime & Consequences","description":"Crime and criminal law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356","name":"Kent Scheidegger","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.cjlf.org"],"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10935","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10935"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10935\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10937,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10935\/revisions\/10937"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10935"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10935"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10935"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}