What exactly did the Harrisburg trial testimony quote from the medical examiner and forensic pathologists?

1. What the reporting actually contains about courtroom language from medical examiners

Several news reports and case studies show forensic witnesses using definitive-sounding medical labels that are nonetheless constrained by professional caution: prosecution experts in high-profile cases have described causes of death with phrases like “asphyxia” or “low oxygen” and have linked those mechanisms to restraint by officers (“primary mechanism of death is asphyxia or low oxygen”) ^{[2] [5]}, while defense-called pathologists in other cases have said bluntly that a restraint “did not cause death” ^[1], and medical examiners have sometimes summarized that restraint was “more than [the decedent] could take” ^[5].

2. How forensic pathologists frame certainty and limitation in testimony

Medical literature and guidance repeatedly caution that forensic pathologists “are rarely able to be 100% certain” and “can never be held to a 100% certainty,” language courts and counsel rely on when evaluating expert testimony; experts therefore often phrase opinions as medically probable, consistent with, or not consistent with particular mechanisms rather than as absolute certainties ^{[3] [4]}.

3. When trial testimony turns on wording about cause versus manner of death

Academic reviews of prior rulings stress that courts scrutinize whether a pathologist’s testimony about cause or manner of death is grounded in objective autopsy findings or improperly rests on third‑party statements; courts have reversed convictions when an examiner’s shift in opinion appeared driven by suspect statements rather than the physical autopsy — a reminder that precise wording (“homicidal drowning,” “undetermined,” etc.) matters legally as well as medically ^[6].

4. Examples of contested phrases from recent trials cited in the reporting

Reporting supplies concrete examples of disputed courtroom lines: in George Floyd’s case, experts told jurors the death was a homicide and emphasized low oxygen/asphyxia related to restraint ^{[2] [5]}; in the Daniel Penny/Jordan Neely proceedings, the city medical examiner testified to “an asphyxial death” from a chokehold while a defense expert testified “the chokehold did not cause death,” creating a direct textual clash the jury had to resolve ^{[1] [7]}.

5. How opposing experts use specific autopsy findings and phrasing to support divergent narratives

Defense and prosecution experts commonly point to particular autopsy observations and choose language that fits their interpretations — for example, citing petechiae, brain exam findings, toxicology, or external lacerations and then using terms like “consistent with” an animal bite, a fall onto a ridged object, blunt force, or restraint-related asphyxia; such phrasing appears repeatedly in coverage of the Karen Read retrial and related testimony ^{[8] [9]}.

6. What cannot be answered from the provided reporting about the “Harrisburg trial” quotes

None of the provided sources contains a Harrisburg trial transcript, a direct quote attributed to a Harrisburg medical examiner, or a link to such testimony, so it is not possible on the basis of these materials to list “exactly” what a Harrisburg medical examiner or forensic pathologist said word-for-word; the documentation instead permits only a reasoned summary of the typical forensic phrases, the caveats experts articulate in court, and how those lines have been used or challenged in the cases reported here ^{[3] [4] [6]}.