How did the independent autopsy commissioned by Floyd's family differ from the official autopsy findings?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The family‑commissioned independent autopsy concluded George Floyd died of asphyxiation from sustained pressure on his neck and back, saying compression cut off blood to his brain and weight on his back prevented breathing [1] [2]. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner also ruled the death a homicide but attributed it to “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression,” noting heart disease and the presence of fentanyl and methamphetamine as contributing factors and stating there were “no physical findings” to support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation [3] [4] [5].
1. Independent autopsy: a blunt conclusion about asphyxia
The private examiners hired by Floyd’s family — Dr. Michael Baden and Dr. Allecia Wilson — announced that their autopsy found the cause of death to be “asphyxiation from sustained pressure,” describing how knee pressure on the neck and officers’ weight on the back both cut off blood flow to the brain and mechanically hindered respiration, and they characterized the manner of death as a homicide [1] [2] [6].
2. Official autopsy: cardiopulmonary arrest with contributing conditions
Hennepin County’s official report likewise labeled Floyd’s death a homicide but gave the cause as cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained, and explicitly recorded other significant conditions — arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease and the presence of fentanyl and recent methamphetamine use — while saying it found “no physical findings” to support traumatic asphyxia or strangulation [3] [5] [4].
3. Where the reports diverge: mechanism versus mode and emphasis
The key difference was one of mechanism and emphasis: the family’s exam named asphyxiation from sustained external pressure as the proximate mechanism of death, whereas the county report framed the immediate event as cardiopulmonary arrest occurring during restraint and emphasized underlying cardiac disease and intoxicants as contributing elements, and explicitly declined to diagnose traumatic asphyxia [1] [4] [3].
4. Context, timing and why the family sought a second opinion
The family said they did not trust local authorities to produce an unbiased exam and commissioned an independent autopsy quickly; toxicology and detailed findings from the county exam were still pending or framed differently in early summaries, which helped drive the public perception of conflicting reports [7] [2]. The family’s choice of high‑profile forensic pathologists with histories in police‑death cases also signaled an intent to press a narrative focused squarely on restraint as the fatal mechanism [2] [1].
5. Expert interpretation: are the autopsies actually irreconcilable?
Independent reporting and forensic commentators cautioned that the two reports are not as far apart as headlines suggested: both ruled homicide and both tied the death to law enforcement restraint, and some pathologists told FiveThirtyEight that differing language can reflect forensic nuance rather than outright contradiction — one report names asphyxia explicitly while the other documents cardiopulmonary arrest with restraint as the precipitating context [8] [6]. At trial, the county chief medical examiner testified that heart disease and fentanyl contributed but were not the primary cause — a stance that narrowed the apparent gap between findings [9].
6. Competing narratives, implicit agendas and the public impact
The independent autopsy served the family’s legal and advocacy aims by attributing death directly to the officers’ restraint and urging upgraded charges, while the county office’s attention to underlying disease and intoxicants was seized on by critics as mitigating factors; both reports carry implicit institutional agendas — families seeking accountability and public agencies cautious about clinical certainty and legal exposure — and the contrast fed a larger national debate about police use of force and credibility in official investigations [1] [4] [10].