In this powerful conversation, Eddie sits down with Professor Terence Keel of UCLA to discuss his groundbreaking book, The Coroner’s Silence: Death Records and the Hidden Victims of Police Violence. Keel shares the origins of his research, sparked by the public killing of George Floyd and deepened through collaboration with activist Helen Jones, whose son John Horton III was killed in custody. Together, they explore how America’s broken death investigation system obscures the truth about deaths in police custody, the historical roots of coroners’ work, and the racial and democratic implications of these failures.
It is the job of the coroner or pathologist to determine how a person died not why. That is what detectives do. The danger of mixing the two is skewing evidence toward an outcome that you are trying to avoid.
Some of the time the history of the person, the heart attack that was due to... without any examination of the person and their lifestyle or lived experiences its passed off as a heart attack sometimes listing 'due to' toxicology results. When a person has clean toxicology results they're not looking at environmental or consumption of poison. The heat attack could come from an environmental entity but it isn't examined.
When you go on for surgery they do a HISTORY and physical but when you die there's no history!?! Minimally, there should be a history taken from more than one relative or friend. There should be 2 or 3 familial interviews and same count of close associates. These histories should be done individually. Mom and Dad or one of them and a sister or close cousin can talk about their interviews questions/answers afterward. If three person has died while they are being pursued or in custody then the police involved should also be interviewed separately and verbatim answers should be questioned by mind if not in writing. If police get an answer of 'heart attack due to...' they may be inclined to write this person death off to whatever might have been a contributed factor but if this person hasn't a history provided for the examiner may not know perhaps that the person has passed a urinalysis the days prior and had been in rehab for a full year prior to one week ago! I'm not saying I've the answer but listening to this interview/discussion it made me aware of the vagueness in cause of death and that the relationship between coroner and police should be less close for objectivity and trust.
' ...where you and I would have more 'oversight' in writing an article than a coroner does in writing an autopsy...' says it all to me. This was excellent commentary and interview. These men, smh. You're something else that I can not give word to. I'm a 'white' Ashkenaz that grew up raised with ideas from the turn of the last century to violence in the public eye from Petit Bridge to George Floyd to MAGA. I so mourn John Lewis. Would you think my tears 'white privilege'? The more I've seen, read and listened the more I remember my 3rd grade experience of racism I cried for.
It is the job of the coroner or pathologist to determine how a person died not why. That is what detectives do. The danger of mixing the two is skewing evidence toward an outcome that you are trying to avoid.
Some of the time the history of the person, the heart attack that was due to... without any examination of the person and their lifestyle or lived experiences its passed off as a heart attack sometimes listing 'due to' toxicology results. When a person has clean toxicology results they're not looking at environmental or consumption of poison. The heat attack could come from an environmental entity but it isn't examined.
When you go on for surgery they do a HISTORY and physical but when you die there's no history!?! Minimally, there should be a history taken from more than one relative or friend. There should be 2 or 3 familial interviews and same count of close associates. These histories should be done individually. Mom and Dad or one of them and a sister or close cousin can talk about their interviews questions/answers afterward. If three person has died while they are being pursued or in custody then the police involved should also be interviewed separately and verbatim answers should be questioned by mind if not in writing. If police get an answer of 'heart attack due to...' they may be inclined to write this person death off to whatever might have been a contributed factor but if this person hasn't a history provided for the examiner may not know perhaps that the person has passed a urinalysis the days prior and had been in rehab for a full year prior to one week ago! I'm not saying I've the answer but listening to this interview/discussion it made me aware of the vagueness in cause of death and that the relationship between coroner and police should be less close for objectivity and trust.
💙💛
' ...where you and I would have more 'oversight' in writing an article than a coroner does in writing an autopsy...' says it all to me. This was excellent commentary and interview. These men, smh. You're something else that I can not give word to. I'm a 'white' Ashkenaz that grew up raised with ideas from the turn of the last century to violence in the public eye from Petit Bridge to George Floyd to MAGA. I so mourn John Lewis. Would you think my tears 'white privilege'? The more I've seen, read and listened the more I remember my 3rd grade experience of racism I cried for.