posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 11:46 AM
a reply to: Mikeultra
You wrongly assumed I meant the Youtube link, for some bizarre reason, then accuse me of not having patience?
If you had bothered to read my last two sentences, you would see the context of "the link" that I referred to: the article in the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch. The link is broken for me, as "4d.html" is cut off of the generated link. It is broken because of BBC not properly formatting it
automatically, and ATS has done this for many links. There is no coverup - it's just a failure of the BBC code. Most links, like this one, can be
corrected by using the BBC URL tags:
Missouri coroners question practices of forensics company operator
. Please use these tags.
And no, it doesn't prove anything. What's wrong - did I go off the script from
The Conservative Treehouse
, where you got this argument from?
Your argument presumes several things: that the lawyer was not mistaken, that there was only one autopsy by the family
, and that Dr. Baden and
Michael Parcells broke the law.
It's illegal for a mere assistant to perform an autopsy. Dr. Baden has a great reputation and would not do something illegal like that to compromise
that reputation. Therefore, your presumption that Parcells did the autopsy and Dr. Baden merely signed off on it is utterly without basis, unless you
have some concrete proof. Did you again miss where the NYT wrote that he and Parcells performed a 4 hour autopsy on Sunday?
The conjecture you and the original source of your argument use is not proof. There could also have been two autopsies done, just as in the scenario
I described. And again, like I said before, the lawyer could just have been wrong. Why are you so quick to slander people when something disagrees