It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Prince autopsy... but not Scalia..

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Link explaining when an autopsy is required in Texas. Code is also cited.

www.harriscountytx.gov...

It is odd to me that there was no autopsy. Our son was killed in a car wreck and the cause was obvious but an autopsy was required.




posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The law doesn't forbid one, nor does it require one.

"The JoP should have ordered one because the people have a right to know" doesn't wash. There are specific circumstances which dictate when an autopsy can, and can't, be ordered. "If it's a high profile person and people who have literally no relation to either the death or the person might come up with conspiracy theories about the death" is not one of those circumstances.


You're wrong. The Justice of the Peace had the discretion to order an autopsy based on Scalia's high-profile nature. The media covered this when Scalia died and interviewed multiple forensic pathologists. There was a lengthy discussion of that issue on this page of the Scalia/Pillow thread: Link

Some highlights:

On Dr. Michael Baden, "given Scalia's stature, he would have recommended an autopsy be conducted, in order to stem the tide of conspiracy."

Dr. Vincent J. M. Di Maio, “It is only who he was that makes it a big deal. You can make an argument that they should have done an autopsy, but the only reason you would do it is he is a Supreme Court judge.”

Dr. Cyril Wecht, "The idea of that body not being seen by a physician and going directly to a funeral home to be embalmed...It's terrible."



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: texasgirl

Personally, I'm all for him being autopsied. He was there on the dime of so,some who had a case coming up before SCOTUS so I would have preferred to have any doubts placed to rest. At the end of the day though, his family requested it not be done and I have to respect their need for privacy in a period of mourning. Just my 2 cents.



You kept it simple: my (you) interests are usurped by the request of the family in a time of grieving. Makes a lot of sense.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

There's not one single aspect of the criminal code that says "if the person is famous, do an autopsy."

Not one.

Did the JoP have the discretion to order one for any number of other reasons? Yep. Is "famous" one of those reasons? Nope. So "you're wrong."

Just as he had the discretion not to. Which he elected to do. Much to your personal chagrin, because conspiracy. And again, not that the presence of an autopsy would end any kind of conspiracy talk, but we can pretend it would matter. It gives people something easy to point to.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: MotherMayEye

There's not one single aspect of the criminal code that says "if the person is famous, do an autopsy."

Not one.

Did the JoP have the discretion to order one for any number of other reasons? Yep. Is "famous" one of those reasons? Nope. So "you're wrong."


Nope. You are wrong.

The JoP has the discretion to order an autopsy for any reason they feel is necessary to confirm cause of death. ANY reason. They aren't limited in that discretion, at all:


(e) A justice of the peace shall order an autopsy performed on a body if:
(1) the justice determines that an autopsy is necessary to determine or confirm the nature and cause of death;

Link

The JoP did not feel the public's interest mattered in CONFIRMING -- let alone determining -- Scalia's 'cause of death.' That was a discretionary decision. I don't have to like or respect it. I can be as suspicious of it as I want.

Scalia was a man who considered EVIDENCE as a SCOTUS justice -- to the point of "reasonable doubt." And he considered what the "preponderance of evidence" proved.

Scalia would agree that there is no evidence, at all, that meets either test when it comes to proving his 'cause of death.' In fact, no one can even state with any certainty, at all, what his cause of death was. All we've been told is that it was 'natural.'



ETA: If Scalia would never accept such flimsy (read as: non-existent) evidence as a SCOTUS Justice, why on earth should I? Or anyone else? If you want to accept it without complaint, fine. But no one else should be expected to.


edit on 24-4-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Do you even know who started this rumor? It was TMZ. Not exactly a reliable source of any kind. TMZ started this rumor with their undisclosed source. TMZ is a trash news outlet. They have had Kate Middleton and Jennifer Aniston pregnant every week this year. Yea so I don't believe a word of this if it's come from a source known to TMZ.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: mblahnikluver

How Prince died is irrelevant. The point is he has a recent medical history to consult after collapsing six days prior. And, amazingly, not only will that medical history be considered, so will autopsy results.

See? That's called being thorough and professional.


edit on 24-4-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Dude. Your ability to spin things into what you want them to be. Your own quoted material disproves your entire statement. You blissfully skip over the word, and it's a pretty key word, "if."

"If," in legalese, provides all the latitude one needs to do, or not do, something for any number of reasons, so long as one is able to articulate why something was done or not done. I know that's a tough pill to swallow in your quest for self gratification, but it is what it is. Your entire argument is based on a flawed interpretation of the law. The law means what it means. Not what you want it to mean. Not what you think it should mean. Not what you hope it means. Not whatever you can bend and turn it in to so it supports your conspiracy ideas.

Call it a loophole. Call it a loose interpretation of the law. Call it whatever makes you feel right. It doesn't change the reality of things. I'm done chasing your ever shifting goalposts about it. In the space of one page you've given multiple reasons why, according to you anyway, the JoP was required to do an autopsy. One gets disproven? Ignore it and point to something else. Now it's devolved into juvenile "no YOU'RE wrong" tactics. I sincerely hope at some point in your life, the fixation goes away or lessens. Till then, better check behind the curtains.

ETA - one final thought: if this was any other 79 year old with a history of heart problems, this wouldn't even be a discussion. How do I know this? I know because it happens every single day and it's not a blip on anybody's radar. It happens in Texas, and Virginia, and Washington, D.C., and every other state in the country. Day in and day out. The only reason it's a topic for debate is because of what Scalia's job was at the time of death. Dress it up however you like, it doesn't change that very basic fact. If this was somebody that nobody had any clue who he was and he had died in the same circumstances, nobody would care that no autopsy had been done. So the core of this whole argument is the belief that it should have been done because of his career and his position. Because "the public has a right to know."
edit on 25-4-2016 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Do we think Scalia overdosed on drugs? It's possible...he was a drinker. Why tarnish the mans image that way though? I think we should show a little respect. People do not need to see all the dirty laundry you have.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

They didn't order one for Scalia because of his religion.

And the fact that he was 80.

~Tenth



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye




Prince was 57 and been in the hospital six days prior for an overdose of percocet.

Source?




PRINCE - PERCOCET TRIGGERED OD Days Before Death



Prince had OD'd on Percocet days before his death, and he ingested so much, EMTs had to administer a "save shot" at the airport where his plane made an emergency landing to save his life.

www.tmz.com...




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join