Experts, probably.
Here's an article about just that. It lays out the timelines, the wording and most importantly, context. If you're really interested in sorting the wheat from the chaff, read this article, penned by a physician.
George Floyd’s Autopsy and the Structural Gaslighting of America – National Clinician Scholars Program at UCLA
If you're not interested in reading it, in a nutshell - the autopsy findings were cherrypicked and then misrepresented by Floyds detractors to shore up a defense.
"By inaccurately portraying the medical findings from the autopsy of George Floyd, the legal system and media emboldened white supremacy, all under the cloak of authoritative scientific rhetoric. They took standard components of a preliminary autopsy report to cast doubt, to sow uncertainty." and "Without this important medical context, however, the public was left to reconcile manipulated medical language with the evidence they had personally witnessed. Ultimately, the initial report overstated and misrepresented the role of chronic medical conditions, inappropriately alluded to intoxicants, and failed to acknowledge the stark reality that
but for the defendant’s knee on George Floyd’s neck, he would not be dead today."
"On May 29, the country was told that the autopsy of George Floyd “revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxiation,” and that “potential intoxicants” and preexisting cardiovascular disease “likely contributed to his death.” This requires clarification. Importantly, these commonly quoted phrases did not come from a physician, but were taken from a charging document that utilized politicized interpretations of medical information. As doctors, we wish to highlight for the public that this framing of the circumstances surrounding Floyd’s death was at best, a misinterpretation, and at worst, a deliberate obfuscation."
